Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lest anyone cry 'racism'

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about a year ago

User Journal 42

George W. Bush: He Gave Rise to the Tea Party
During his five years in office, President Obama has often blamed his problems on what George W. Bush left him with: two wars, a historic recession, an out-of-control financial system and a huge budget deficit. But W.'s most enduring legacy to his successor may have been the tea party

George W. Bush: He Gave Rise to the Tea Party
During his five years in office, President Obama has often blamed his problems on what George W. Bush left him with: two wars, a historic recession, an out-of-control financial system and a huge budget deficit. But W.'s most enduring legacy to his successor may have been the tea party movement, and the political dysfunction that it has brought.

A counter-argument would be that the dysfunction centers around the non-enumerated Federal power growth that is not seen as legitimate.

cancel ×

42 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

True (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year ago | (#45028693)

Those of us "on the ground" with the GOP during Bush's tenure know that many conservatives abandoned the GOP due to the spending and controlling ways of Bush and the Congress, and the people who joined the Tea Party were mostly those disaffected conservatives, who had either left the GOP, or were at least angry at it. Obama wasn't the original cause of the Tea Party, he was just the final straw.

Re:True (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45029785)

I don't mind admitting that I had a complacent attitude about everything.
Mostly, Obama isn't anything new, just all the old stuff turned up to 11.
Nevertheless, this junk will stop. The question is the ugliness of the crash.

I'll give you that (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#45032365)

GWB was the most conservative president we had experienced in our country up to 2008. For reasons unclear to thinking people, his deeply conservative administration caused a large number of people who actually were being harmed by conservative policies to yearn for even more conservative policies. Naturally at that point there was plenty of money around from the small numbers of people who found the GWB administration beneficial to sway people into acting against their own interests.

The amusing bit is just that Obama ended up far more conservative than his predecessor, who was more conservative than any president who came before him. Yet a vocal minority who were acting against their own interests convinced themselves that this was not enough.

Re:I'll give you that (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45033797)

For a differing perspective, Bush43 was cut from the same Progressive cloth as Bush41.
More expensive foreign wars, more collapse of power into DC.
I suppose the attempt to do something about the Social Security plantation after the '04 election is one thing I would consider 'conservative' about Bush43.
He also (at least claimed that he) tried to do something about Fanny/Freddy fandango.
'Conservative' is about limited government carrying out enumerated powers under the auspices of We The People.
For a good roadmap on where we need to go, review Levin [amazon.com] .
Other than that, I view your insistence that Obama is 'conservative' as a trollish attempt at humor. Or maybe you really think that.

Re:I'll give you that (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#45034057)

For a differing perspective, Bush43 was cut from the same Progressive cloth as Bush41.

Actually I don't see the two as being much similar at all. From a policy standpoint Bush41 tried to undo some of what Reagan did, while GWB tried to turn Reaganomics up to 11.

'Conservative' is about limited government carrying out enumerated powers under the auspices of We The People.

If you really feel that the only problem is that DC is doing too much, then you haven't had a conservative president since ... well probably ever. We can discuss why that has never happened, if you want. I instead use the view of a conservative as being someone who has their prime motivation on their 1040 form - some would call that a fiscal conservative - and their secondary motivation in the Bible. Furthermore I evaluate a politician based on what they actually do rather than what they promise, or what people feel they might want to do. Under that view, every president since at least Eisenhower has been a conservative, and each president has been more conservative than his predecessor.

In other words I can't find a single bill that President Lawnchair has signed that would not have been signed by any conservative president that has ever been elected.

If instead you want to talk about theoretical conservative presidents - or conservatives who have never been elected president - then it is only fair to discuss theoretical liberal presidents at the same time in order to really establish the bounds of the domain. If we do that, then again President Lawnchair, when evaluated by his actions, would be no further to the left than a center-right position; and still further right than any elected president that has preceded him.

Other than that, I view your insistence that Obama is 'conservative' as a trollish attempt at humor

No, this has nothing to do with comedy. This is about evaluating actual facts and actual events, rather than just expressing emotion.

Re:I'll give you that (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45034173)

I instead use the view of a conservative as being someone who has their prime motivation on their 1040 form - some would call that a fiscal conservative - and their secondary motivation in the Bible.

Look, I don't deny that the IRS is Constitutional. The 16th Amendment is right there. But how about "about evaluating actual facts and actual events"? We're $17Tr in the hole at this point, without the slightest indication of another possible course. And what's the viability of our vaunted social safety net? Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid all creaky, and now you want to throw an ObamaCare bomb in there, too? Who's having whom on here?
To stabilize the system:
- Expand the House [thirty-thousand.org] to be, you know, representative;
- Have States pick their own Senators, to restrain the House, as was intended;
- Get rid of the federal income tax; have DC bill the States against the budget, with an automatic sales tax to make up the shortfalls;
- Limit the federal budget to the last year's receipts at the treasury;
- End "Zimbabwe" Ben's wanton inflation of the dollar;
- Pass all of the student loan/housing/safety net debt currently held in DC down to the States wherein they sit.

All of the above is impossible in a context where safety net programs amount to vote-buying schemes. As with Social Security and my military pension, we have to understand that we've been essentially rooked by no one in particular, but a corrupt system as a whole.
Got to insist on liberty, and escape these velvet handcuffs.

their secondary motivation in the Bible.

To what theocratic strawman or -woman are you referring? If you were putting any politician on trial for having religious convictions, a legal conviction is hard to imagine.

Re:I'll give you that (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#45036077)

I instead use the view of a conservative as being someone who has their prime motivation on their 1040 form - some would call that a fiscal conservative - and their secondary motivation in the Bible.

We're $17Tr in the hole at this point

And how does one end up in debt? By spending more than you take in. Being as we have simultaneously reduced federal income (by lowering taxes) while increasing spending, this is not a single-factor problem. We cannot get out of this problem by reducing income; in fact reducing income is moving in the wrong direction.

And what's the viability of our vaunted social safety net? Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid all creaky

Which is again the result of reducing federal income.

now you want to throw an ObamaCare bomb in there, too?

Every review that has been done on the expenses of the Health Insurance Company Bailout Act of 2010 shows that it will not increase the federal debt. There are plenty of things wrong with it such that you should not need to make things up about it.

To stabilize the system:

You suggested repealing several amendments from the constitution. Why those ones in particular? What is it about them that you feel is so terrible?

Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to a full rewrite from the first on. Approaching it piecemeal isn't really a rational thing to do, as it only sets up for more partisan bickering and most likely another government shutdown while various groups posture to protect their sacred cows.

If you were putting any politician on trial for having religious convictions, a legal conviction is hard to imagine.

I would do no such thing. Such a thing would not only be unconstitutional and immoral, it would further illuminate the fact that the religious distribution in the federal government does not match the religious makeup of our country. If the makeup of elected representatives were even vaguely close we would have several more Muslims (beyond just Keith Ellison), some Hindus, some Buddhists, and many many atheists.

Re:I'll give you that (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45038183)

Why those ones in particular? What is it about them that you feel is so terrible?

Because Amends. 16 & 17 + Federal Reserve Act + freezing the size of the House in 1910, plus a century of development and Cold War Communist assault, have our government now running open loop.
Congress throws together a multi-ream pile of hooey, passes it unread. Then executive agencies write more reams of regulation against the legislation, and we're living in a tyranny of bureaucrats.
A century on, the Progressive model is just done. I could pile on more negativity if you care, but it's finished. The Information Age is here, and we seem on the cusp of going the Full Orwell with it.
Now you have Boehner the Feeble trying to reach back into a past where what We The People wanted actually mattered, and Harry 'the Cadaver' Reid is pitching a fit. Maybe Reid could serve everyone up a shot of embalming fluid, and we could just toast Progress together here in bureaucratic hell.

Re:I'll give you that (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#45058035)

...more collapse of power into DC.

Again wrong. Power passes through D.C., but, as always, it resides (by definition) where the wealth and privilege are, on Wall Street. That is where policy is set, for the folks in D.C. to execute and enforce. They are who select the candidates, which you, the voters, blindly accept.

Re:I'll give you that (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45059487)

I think that's substantially accurate, though it's more complicated by the fact that the elected officials, themselves, accrue some decent fortunes over time.
Also, the political parties have some influence in candidate selection, which gives rise to the tension between the GOP elite and the Tea Party, which does lob an occasional Cruz or Paul in there to keep things interesting.
What's fascinating here is your strange comfort level with this status quo. We're on the cusp of using technology to redistribute a bit of power, and yet you seem to cling bitterly to your resignation.

Re:I'll give you that (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#45059633)

What's fascinating here is your strange comfort level with this status quo.

You are still trapped in your infinite loop. This is how I know you're not listening, and simply not worth further response.

Re:I'll give you that (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45060407)

No really: are we just doomed, as you seem to argue, or is it time to realize the Founder's vision of an informed electorate?
The future is likely some squishy amalgamation, as there are those who really do prefer life on the plantation. Been that way since the Jews kvetched about being led out of Egypt during the Exodus.

New theory (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45033801)

You may think Obama a failure, and thus the 'conservative' label is so that, by the time Hillary runs in 2016, the propaganda will be that BO was subverted by the Republican Party, using NRA mind control lasers and a selfie of Karl Rove in a towel.
It's all so clear.

Re:New theory (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#45035015)

Fascinating, but no.

I call Obama a conservative because he is following the play book of every conservative president we've ever had. He hasn't signed a single bill into law yet that Bush, Reagan, Bush Sr, Ford, Nixon, etc ... would not have signed. He has also reduced taxes on the wealthiest more than any of them ever dreamed of doing. He has funneled more money into large corporations than any of them ever dreamed of doing as well.

There is no need for mind control or any other such malarkey. Obama essentially punked the whole country - by running as a liberal and then acting as a conservative. He knows what he's doing, the surprise is that nobody else seems to have seen it coming - that or he is just a coward with the spine of a Lawnchair.

Now as for what Hillary would do, I'm not sure. Back when she was first lady she was a champion of single payer health care but obviously we're never going to see that. Would her husband factor in? Who knows. I suspect your news sources have plenty of great hypotheses of what he would do.

Re:New theory (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45038101)

Obama essentially punked the whole country - by running as a liberal and then acting as a conservative.

I am in awe of this. He promised to "fundamentally transform" this country. And he has. Look at ObamaCare. Look at the workforce participation. Look at the crony capitalism. Look at the number of people on foodstamps, or other bread & circus handout.
You can call this "Europeanization" of America "conservative" if you want to. It's all Holy Progress from my vantage.
Oh, and we're supposed to get to Single Prayer, after ObamaCare has utterly devastated our healthcare and economy.

Re:New theory (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#45038257)

He promised to "fundamentally transform" this country.

I'm not sure that those were his words, but the point is reasonable regardless. I will even say I wanted him to transform the country, though of course I am well aware of the limits on the ability of the POTUS to do such a thing.

And he has.

Except he has not. He has made a few minor changes, but all of them were in the same direction that our country was already headed under the direction of the previous conservative presidents.

Look at ObamaCare.

The Health Insurance Company Bailout Act of 2010 is another piece of conservative legislation. Modeled on the demands of the Heritage Foundation, which were based on the celebrated state act called RomneyCare before. There is nothing progressive or liberal about making people into dedicated customers of giant for-profit corporations. There is, however, plenty for fiscal conservatives to celebrate in such an act as it puts more money into the private flow, away from the government.

Look at the workforce participation.

When you don't change the economic policies, why would you expect different economic results? We aren't doing any better at training good workers nor are we improving our appeal as a workplace. Instead we just keep making the people at the top more powerful and watching the rest scamper for crumbs. Again, very conservative.

Some would even call it "economic darwinism", although of course the religious conservatives don't like the latter part of that term in particular.

Look at the number of people on foodstamps, or other bread & circus handout.

You are assuming those to have been goals, when you have no reason other than partisan speculation to believe such a thing. In reality this is just the extension of the same crappy economic policies that we have seen now for well over a decade, and arguably over 3 decades.

You can call this "Europeanization" of America

Smitty, please stop feeding me the soundbites from breitbart. This has no realistic resemblance to the economy of any western European country. You can see that if you open your eyes.

Oh, and we're supposed to get to Single Prayer,

Hogwash. Your clever typo doesn't help your cause either. We won't see single payer in the next two decades in this country at the minimum, unless we finally break the country into two. I would put the odds of a breakup of the country within the next 20 years at 10:1, the odds of single payer coming without it in the next 40 years as 900:1.

ObamaCare has utterly devastated our healthcare and economy

I would love to know why you feel that a bill that supports the current system would be capable of doing that. Really, think of what you just wrote there; I know you are capable of it. I don't like the Bailout but I know it is not capable of doing that. Hyperbole does not suit you well nor does it help your argument.

Re:New theory (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45041709)

I would love to know why you feel that a bill that supports the current system would be capable of doing that.

I'm confident you'll continue to filter out any economic news that points to the increased Europeanization of America: unemployment skyrocketing, people on the dole, the number of under-employed mounting.
It's kind of funny, in this thread, if you step back and admire my rejection of your application of the 'conservative' label to #OccupyResoluteDesk, and your rejection of the Europeanization of America.
But the two systems unite at the point of a smarmy group of quasi-aristocrats, our dorks in DC vs. the muscles from Brussels, who are burying societies in regulations. Rooms of little pointy-headed, pencil-neck bureaucrats who're just one more tax hike away from crafting Utopia.
Burying future generations in penury to feed the bureaucratic Cthulhu.
Keep trying to explain the difference to me, please.

Re:New theory (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45041901)

I'm confident you'll continue to filter out any economic news that points to the increased Europeanization of America

It is hard to filter out news that isn't there. I ask you for news and you give me nonsense. You can do so much better than this, smitty. You are making a mockery of yourself when you clam up in conservative talking points.

unemployment skyrocketing, people on the dole, the number of under-employed mounting.

Those numbers have scarcely changed since 2003. Why have they barely moved? Because we are still using the same economic tactics that we used then, which are the same ones we used in the 80s under Reagan.

Rooms of little pointy-headed, pencil-neck bureaucrats who're just one more tax hike away from crafting Utopia.

Casting your nightmare scenario as definite reality doesn't help you any either. Again, I gave you a question:

I would love to know why you feel that a bill that supports the current system would be capable of doing that.

And you gave me hyperbole. Is someone ghost writing for you? Your responses in this thread are at least 4 or 5 levels of logic beneath the worst that I saw from you only a short month or two ago. I want the real smitty back, the one who can actually think before pasting in editorial text from drudge as if it were god's own truth.

What you have posted these past couple weeks has been beyond disappointing. You have abandoned reason and logic; you have instead opted for repetition of baseless fear. It actually hurts me a little bit to see such drivel being posted under your name.

Re:New theory (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45043223)

I think I had an epiphany here. Are you calling Obama a 'conservative' based upon a far-far Left perspective, such that anyone who isn't up to your doctrinaire Socialist leanings is clearly 'conservative'?
Perhaps we can find a middle ground (or no-man's land) here and call BHO a 'centrist'. That way, neither of us really has to 'own' this knob.
But here is a broader point: the 1787 U.S. Constitution was initially designed to filter out tyranny, and preserve the individual as the unit of analysis.
I argue strongly, at length and in detail, that the Constitution has been weakened since Woodrow Wilson, putting too much power in DC, and diminishing States into license plate stamping outfits.
- The debt has skyrocketed,
- the dollar has been thoroughly debased [factmonster.com] ,
- we haven't budgeted regularly since #OccupyResoluteDesk promised he was here to "fundamentally transform the United States of America [youtube.com] ",
- we have labor force participation rate suckage [cnn.com] unseen since the 2nd worst (and fellow Naval Academy Grad) POTUS in U.S. history,
and I'm getting from you:

What you have posted these past couple weeks has been beyond disappointing. You have abandoned reason and logic; you have instead opted for repetition of baseless fear.

You can call me Chicken Little here, but only if I can call you Pollyanna, and admire your lovely rose-tinted shades, dear.
Until the epiphany that you're probably arguing from an ultra-Left perspective, I confess I hadn't been taking this thread too seriously, as the notion that Obama is 'conservative' remains laughable.
Then again, arguing from the Tea Party perspective, I don't think the Vichy GOP are terribly conservative, either. There is merit to the online drubbing being given to Tea Partiers for supporting the GOP, as it is part & parcel of the Statist Progressive problem. So there's that.
Ultimately, we just have to increase the number of Ted Cruzes, Rand Pauls, and Mike Lees in our government, and unwind Gramsci's long march through the institutions [wikipedia.org] .
THEN you can get to a country where social safety nets are more that debt-driven federal mirages that bring little joy, but lots of jobs for bureaucrats who get to lord power over their newly-minted peasantry.

Re:New theory (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45043653)

Are you calling Obama a 'conservative' based upon a far-far Left perspective, such that anyone who isn't up to your doctrinaire Socialist leanings is clearly 'conservative'?

No. I call President Lawnchair a conservative because every policy and law he has ever signed has been a direct extension of every conservative president we have ever had in this country. You cannot show me a single bill that Obama has signed into law that would not have been signed by Reagan or either Bush. You could go further down into history through other conservative presidents and find the same result.

I argue strongly, at length and in detail, that the Constitution has been weakened since Woodrow Wilson, putting too much power in DC, and diminishing States into license plate stamping outfits.

If that is your thesis you need to accept that the current state is fundamentally no different than it was during any conservative president we've had since Hoover with regards to the powers of the federal government and the role of the market in the economy.

- The debt has skyrocketed,

- the dollar has been thoroughly debased,

Those have both been on the same trajectory for 30+ years now, due to policies not changing in a meaningful way since the 80s.

promised he was here to "fundamentally transform the United States of America",

You have provided a link to a campaign speech. Sure, he said that. But he has not lived up to it. He said it five days before the 2008 presidential election, when it seemed clear that the democrats would have the house, senate, and white house after the election was over. He seemed to believe at the time that he would be able to do what he wanted to "transform" America. What he didn't expect was that the democrats in the house (in particular) and senate (to only a slightly lesser degree) would be cowards allowing the right wing to bully them into doing nothing until the house flipped in the subsequent midterm election.

we have labor force participation rate suckage

Take a good look at that graph. How high does the y-axis go? It barely reaches to 68%, it is around 63% right now. It really hasn't moved that much. Sure, I would like to see it go higher but compared to the highest number on the graph we are barely beyond the margin of error. Also the time scale is rather large, which makes it hard to reasonably forecast the slope of the line at the current point.

You can call me Chicken Little here, but only if I can call you Pollyanna, and admire your lovely rose-tinted shades, dear.

I'm starting to think that you have resolved to no longer read more than about a third of what I write. At least, I don't see any other way to explain why you would come to that conclusion. I call President Lawnchair (really, would someone call a president they are proud of from a policy standpoint that?) a conservative because the policies he has signed have been deeply conservative, particularly from a financial standpoint. I have no rose-colored glasses on regarding him, and I don't know how you could possibly reach that conclusion.

as the notion that Obama is 'conservative' remains laughable.

No, what is laughable is that you have in this thread tried to call President Lawnchair a liberal (an argument you could not support with facts), a socialist (again you could not support that with facts), a communist (again an argument sans facts), and some sort of far left revolutionary (which you still could not support with actual facts from what he has done as president). If the man at 1600 Pennsylvania had an (R) after his name he would have signed all the same bills. Every. Single. One. Hell, you go on to praise Rand Paul; if it was President Paul he would have celebrated the Bailout Act of 2010 as a "great victory for the free market and the American people" due to the way it creates more customers for the market. He is just another partisan like yourself, you hate the bill because it is associated with a democrat - even though that democrat did not write it and essentially none of the fundamental health care reforms that he wanted are in it.

You need to take a step back, turn off the conservative talk radio, and look at reality here. You clearly cannot in your head separate Obama from The Idea of Obama, and your confusion on the distance clouds your ability to actually look at facts.

Maybe this statement will clear things up for you. I wanted Obama to be a liberal. I suspect he himself wanted to be a liberal. However as anyone else does he goes in with concern for his legacy and made decisions based on that concern. That concern caused him to sign very conservative legislation that he would not have supported as a senator, and to make compromises that he would not have supported then either. After he leaves in 2017 and history has time to evaluate him we will look at his actions as being deeply conservative, easily more conservative than any president who has ever held the office before him.

Re:New theory (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45044171)

If that is your thesis you need to accept that the current state is fundamentally no different than it was during any conservative president we've had since Hoover with regards to the powers of the federal government and the role of the market in the economy.

I have, in fact, been saying that all along. Wilson scored a mission kill on our Constitution, and power has been collapsing into DC for a century. The vaunted "two-party" system is a farce--it's all Progressives.

Those have both been on the same trajectory for 30+ years now, due to policies not changing in a meaningful way since the 80s.

Yes, the Federal Reserve is evil, been saying that, too.

You have provided a link to a campaign speech. Sure, he said that. But he has not lived up to it. He said it five days before the 2008 presidential election, when it seemed clear that the democrats would have the house, senate, and white house after the election was over.

Well, I got you to admit that he said that. This feels like improvement. But the transformation into a 3rd World Banana Republic continues apace. Did you see D'Souza's flick [2016themovie.com] ? Revelatory.

the policies he has signed have been deeply conservative, particularly from a financial standpoint

Republican Presidents have cheerfully, wantonly, signed deficit-spending budgets for years. I was a Perot voter in '92, and have Tea Partied since Santelli's famous rant. The strategy of actual fiscal conservatives has been to try to work through the GOP to restore some sanity to our government. Our Ruling Class Progressives today are as intransigent as King George III back in the day.
And, in fact, those Republican sellouts may have called themselves 'conservative'. I suppose refuting their bogosity is best done with political scalps. See how well Nancy Mace does in SC next year against Lindsey Graham.
In summary, I see us as leaving a large pile of political wreckage between two poles here. You don't want Progressive Democrats, and I don't want Progressive Republicans. What baffles me is why a federalist solution is unobtainable. Why can't Blue States just be as Left as they wanna be, and Red States as conservative? Our difficulties seem tied to trying to be One Mondo State. I'll watch you, prayerfully, marry whatever and avert my gaze at the SCOTUS-invented things I find unmentionable. We should ideally have a spectrum of 50 states, and let people find the correct balance of factors that scratches their itch.
But what do I know?

You need to take a step back, turn off the conservative talk radio, and look at reality here. You clearly cannot in your head separate Obama from The Idea of Obama, and your confusion on the distance clouds your ability to actually look at facts.

I admit to sampling the Patriot channel on Sirius XM, to the tune of about an hour a week. I actually can't stand it much. Levin is about the only one whose style I find reasonably stimulating, probably due to his legal background. It may be challenging, but please understand: I've done my own research, and find this Progressive course has been ruinous for the U.S.

I wanted Obama to be a liberal. I suspect he himself wanted to be a liberal.

I find the only theory that pulls BHO into focus is that he just digs power. He says things like "I Have Bent Over Backwards To Work With The Republican Party [cbslocal.com] " as though the saying, itself, constitutes doing. I don't even really think him a liar. I just don't think he's working with truth/falsehood in any normal sense anymore. It's as though he thinks his tongue a magic wand, and just saying "Jobs, jobs, jobs" will un-jack the economy.
If the American people learn shag-all from this wretched period of history, it's that attempting policy at the wrong level begets really bad results.

Re:New theory (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45059777)

The vaunted "two-party" system is a farce--it's all Progressives.

Just to try to get a better reading on you, are you trying to make an argument that our country has never had a conservative president? Because for some time conservatives were labeling Reagan (in particular) as the conservative high water mark in the presidency. Of course, you are free to disagree with that and propose otherwise. I just want to make sure I understand your claim accurately.

And frankly, if Reagan was not a conservative, I shudder to think of what a conservative would do to my ability to work and live a decent life.

Well, I got you to admit that he said that. This feels like improvement.

I never denied that Obama said what you said he said. I just wanted to know the context that you were getting it from. As I pointed out, he did not say that as an elected president, and he certainly did not accomplish it as such either.

We should ideally have a spectrum of 50 states, and let people find the correct balance of factors that scratches their itch.

If the states should be free to do WTF they want, then why have a central federal government at all? I have been saying for some time now that I expect to see a breakup of the USA into two (or more) countries within the next 20 or so years, your argument seems to be pointing to there being to advantage in keeping the country together other than that some people really like the number 50.

You need to take a step back, turn off the conservative talk radio, and look at reality here. You clearly cannot in your head separate Obama from The Idea of Obama, and your confusion on the distance clouds your ability to actually look at facts.

I admit to sampling the Patriot channel on Sirius XM, to the tune of about an hour a week. I actually can't stand it much. Levin is about the only one whose style I find reasonably stimulating, probably due to his legal background. It may be challenging, but please understand: I've done my own research, and find this Progressive course has been ruinous for the U.S.

The problem though is that we are not on a progressive course. Furthermore the fact that you keep trying desperately to paint Obama as a communist, socialist, progressive, liberal, atheist whatever shows that you are not doing any real research before writing down what you hear. History will show that Obama has done nothing of any consequence that is liberal, progressive, socialist, or communist.

I find the only theory that pulls BHO into focus is that he just digs power

I challenge you to find a senator or congress person who doesn't. That is how people end up there. Some people have made the argument that the people who want to be president are the last people who ever should, which is not an argument without merit.

He says things like "I Have Bent Over Backwards To Work With The Republican Party"

President Lawnchair is without equal - at least for the past three decades - when it comes to sacrificing his own campaign promises to advance legislation. The real question that historians will look at after the 2016 elections will be whether Obama entered the white house with conservative goals (while selling liberal ones at the polls) or if he simply gave up on them to avoid going down in history as a "do-nothing president".

Re:New theory (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45060385)

Because for some time conservatives were labeling Reagan (in particular) as the conservative high water mark in the presidency.

Sure, but let's be clear that, in economically vanquishing the Soviet Union, Reagan was unafraid of deficit spending. And he didn't do anything about entitlements, or the Federal Reserve. Worst of all, Reagan (arguably due to the lack of an internet) left no substantial intellectual heir. Jack Kemp didn't get the job done. No, conservativism reverted to the Bush family, and Ross Perot was ineffective in 1992.
It's only with the advent of the internet that those zany old folks who think gazinta should equal gazoutta have been able to make any inroads, and look at the blowback from the Progressive GOP! Stunning.

If the states should be free to do WTF they want, then why have a central federal government at all?

One would have thought that the 1787 Constitution, as amended prior to 1913, offered a fairly complete answer.
Of course, as I've been saying, Wilson laid the foundation for a the neo-aristocracy we currently enjoy around then.

History will show that Obama has done nothing of any consequence

Can we at least agree that it was all about power?

He says things like "I Have Bent Over Backwards To Work With The Republican Party"

President Lawnchair is without equal - at least for the past three decades - when it comes to sacrificing his own campaign promises to advance legislation.

You can just admit that he makes noises with total disregard for any factual/historical content. I think the man so categorically detached from reality (see YouTube for Senator Obama vs. President Obama on the debt ceiling) that I don't think the word 'lie' even begins to capture the man's systematic prevarication.

Re:New theory (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45061067)

Because for some time conservatives were labeling Reagan (in particular) as the conservative high water mark in the presidency.

Sure

Just to make this extra-uber clear, do you then see Reagan as a conservative president, or not? One question I may have not adequately asked you is whether or not you view any president who has been elected in the US since 1776 to be a conservative.

but let's be clear that, in economically vanquishing the Soviet Union, Reagan was unafraid of deficit spending

Frankly, if he had decent intelligence behind him he would have realized that once he convinced the Soviets that the Star Wars Missile Defense was real he could have slashed the military budget to peanuts as he doomed the USSR at that point to spend themselves into oblivion to counter a weapon that did not exist.

conservativism reverted to the Bush family

I am willing to accept a charge of Bush Sr. not being particularly conservative from an economic standpoint (thinking specifically of his "voodoo economics" statement). However Bush Jr. pretty well followed the Reaganomics playbook all the way through, and ramped it up severely after his "political capital" speech. Hence if you accept Reagan as a conservative, you need to accept Bush Jr. as the same. And being as Obama hasn't ventured away from Bush's Reaganomics-derived policy, the argument is there for classifying Obama under the same tent that you place Reagan and Bush Jr.

One would have thought that the 1787 Constitution, as amended prior to 1913, offered a fairly complete answer.

Once again you are picking and choosing the parts of the constitution that you feel should apply, in comparison to those that you feel should not. You really need to see it as a single package - that is, until you can get congress to write or strike an amendment. You don't get to take amendments to be more valuable simply due to age or having lower numeration.

History will show that Obama has done nothing of any consequence

Can we at least agree that it was all about power?

If we can agree that we have not had a president to date who would have done any differently, sure.

see YouTube for Senator Obama vs. President Obama on the debt ceiling

How is it that GOP politicians are allowed to have their viewpoints "evolve" over time, but democrats are not? (and for that matter why is such a thing tolerated at all from a party whose platform categorically denies the idea of the evolution of life?) And why is the debt ceiling suddenly the fault of the president when the president has a (D) after his name but if the president has an (R) after his name it is the fault of congress? I'm not sure that you'll even be able to recognize the original location of the goal any more if you keep moving the goal posts this often.

Re:New theory (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45061677)

Just to make this extra-uber clear, do you then see Reagan as a conservative president, or not? One question I may have not adequately asked you is whether or not you view any president who has been elected in the US since 1776 to be a conservative.

I do consider Reagan conservative, though I think 'warts and all' is a view you have to take with any of these political nitwits. Even 'Silent Cal' Coolidge let the scourge of the Federal Reserve stand. So we should endeavor to go easy with the canonize/demonize urge, and take everyone in context. The Obama damage might not have exceeded Jimmy Carter so substantially if not for coming on the heels of your boy George W.

Frankly, if he had decent intelligence behind him he would have realized that once he convinced the Soviets that the Star Wars Missile Defense was real he could have slashed the military budget to peanuts as he doomed the USSR at that point to spend themselves into oblivion to counter a weapon that did not exist.

I confess I don't see any value to this counter-factual.

And being as Obama hasn't ventured away from Bush's Reaganomics-derived policy

Keystone XL?
The war on coal?
The EPA trying to regulate carbon?
As is so often the case, I can't discern if you (a) aren't paying attention, (b) think I am not, or (c) are just recreationally trolling.

Once again you are picking and choosing the parts of the constitution that you feel should apply

Yes, indeed, and quite: the Enumerated Powers bound the tasks that are deemed needful. Our difficulties seem to orbit FDR's Second Bill of Rights, which is most certainly unratified, yet Progressives (Republican & Democrat alike) insist on trying to force through by sheer weight of "Shut up!". It's not deemed legitimate.

How is it that GOP politicians are allowed to have their viewpoints "evolve" over time, but democrats are not?

They are? When, pray, has this famous event been permitted?

Re:New theory (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45062303)

And being as Obama hasn't ventured away from Bush's Reaganomics-derived policy

Keystone XL?

Keystone XL was asking for the federal government to dictate to landowners to grant right-of-passage to the pipeline. Bush and Reagan would have told the Keystone group to find another route as it was interfering with private property; hence Obama actually left the federal government out by not getting involved.

The war on coal?

We extract and burn more coal now than we ever have in the past. The war on coal is in your imagination.

The EPA trying to regulate carbon?

The EPA is not taking orders directly from Obama. The EPA has numbers to support the hypothesis of the role of carbon in global warming and is attempting to act in accordance to protect the environment. Need I remind you that the funding for the EPA is dictated by the house, leaving the POTUS without the ability to stop them?

Yes, indeed, and quite: the Enumerated Powers bound the tasks that are deemed needful.

You have gone beyond that, however. You have mentioned before that you favor elimination of some standing amendments, even though they are indeed Enumerated.

Our difficulties seem to orbit FDR's Second Bill of Rights, which is most certainly unratified, yet Progressives (Republican & Democrat alike) insist on trying to force through by sheer weight of "Shut up!".

And now you have ventured back into conspiracy theory mode.

How is it that GOP politicians are allowed to have their viewpoints "evolve" over time, but democrats are not?

They are? When, pray, has this famous event been permitted?

Pretty well every republican who has ever run for president has laid claim to this. Highly notable examples were both Romney in 2012 and McCain in 2008; who each claimed to have had their views "evolve".

Huh? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45063677)

hence Obama actually left the federal government out by not getting involved.

Oh, just blocking it [ogj.com] .

The war on coal is in your imagination.

Which correlates with facts quite nicely [gop.com] .

The EPA is not taking orders directly from Obama.

President Jarrett's agenda is sure cleaning house, though.

You have mentioned before that you favor elimination of some standing amendments, even though they are indeed Enumerated.

No, Enumerated Powers [wikipedia.org] are not Amendments [wikipedia.org] .

And now you have ventured back into conspiracy theory mode.

No, the Second Bill of Rights [wikipedia.org] is a historical fact, as are the various federal agencies that mark its cancerous growth. Nor am I specifically accusing any person OR party of conspiratorially doing anything--the collapse into autocracy has occurred in plain sight. I'll venture you disagree with my characterization, but it is what it is.

Pretty well every republican who has ever run for president has laid claim to this.

Oh, that's right: #OccupyResoluteDesk 'evolved' on gay marriage. So, what was your point again?

Re:Huh? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45065909)

hence Obama actually left the federal government out by not getting involved.

Oh, just blocking it.

If he would have granted the keystone group what they were asking for he would have been trampling on private property rights. I thought you liked those?

The war on coal is in your imagination.

Which correlates with facts quite nicely.

That link actually goes to the republican party. You could hardly find a more biased source of "information" if you tried. Look at the amount of coal that is coming out of the ground, and being burned for energy, today. It is more than any other time in history. Only someone foolish enough to believe that god will give us more coal when we use up what we have would think that accelerating the burn rate further is a good idea.

The EPA is not taking orders directly from Obama.

President Jarrett's agenda is sure cleaning house, though.

Yeah, the EPA sure gets a lot done when it keeps getting its budget cut every year. Hell I expect the EPA barely notices the government shutdown since they barely have any employees left anyways.

And now you have ventured back into conspiracy theory mode.

No, the Second Bill of Rights is a historical fact

The second bill of rights is something that was said, but never signed into law. Hell it wasn't even a signing statement for a law. It has no authority and nobody uses it as such. You can try to get creative by attaching it to things that you fear might some day happen, but that doesn't mean it is such.

Pretty well every republican who has ever run for president has laid claim to this.

Oh, that's right: #OccupyResoluteDesk 'evolved' on gay marriage

Except that nothing on the federal level has happened as a result. He just said that now he thinks gay marriage is not such a terrible thing. The matters that the republican candidates evolve on almost without fail are things that the GOP demands immediate federal action on.

Also, while I'm glad to see you finally relaxing a little bit on calling President Lawnchair a name that doesn't imply him to be a relative of a certain deposed Iraqi dictator, I can't find anyone else using your hashtag to describe him. It appears you might be one of very few who buy into the conspiracy theory of him being connected to the occupy movement - I must say it would be pretty clever of him to connect himself to a movement that spawned several people who wanted to run for the white house against him!

So, what was your point again?

I laid that out in a previous comment.

Re:Huh? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45067759)

I, for one, am comfortable with this amount of talking past each other.

Re:Huh? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45069291)

I am sorry that you have chosen that path. We used to be able to discuss these matters and now you are more a parody of what you were a very, very, short time ago. Blindly repeating partisan talking points without concern for factual reality doesn't help anyone.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45085213)

damn_registrars wouldn't know factual reality if it bit him in the ass.

Tea Party, Occupy (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 months ago | (#45055849)

They were both really caused by this: Reality vs perception [upworthy.com]

Re:Tea Party, Occupy (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45057373)

For a more global secular perspective on the point, see this [youtube.com] .
But what really fascinates me in your case, knowing that you're Christian, is that you miss the scriptural point in all of this:
fretting all this vain loot under the sun is a straight-up 10th Commandment violation.
Giving place to Satan to spread envy over the neighbor's material goods has been both:
(a) a tremendous source of political power to demagogues, and
(b) a source of spiritual darkness.
We need to pray for Donald Trump's soul, and maybe his ridiculous hairstyle, not envy him his tawdry things.

Re:Tea Party, Occupy (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 months ago | (#45057675)

Envy? Massive violation of a major sin that cries out to heaven, and you're worried about ENVY that it causes?

Yes, we need to pray for Donald Trump's soul, that's the point.

Re:Tea Party, Occupy (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45059567)

You're not seeing how envy is used as

a tremendous source of political power to demagogues?

Re:Tea Party, Occupy (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 months ago | (#45071129)

Oh it is, but it is the demagogues who are causing the envy with their own sin first. If there wasn't an economy based on death (1:3 people conceived under the age of 40 were not allowed to be born) and genocide of the poor, there wouldn't be any purpose to the envy.

Re:Tea Party, Occupy (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45072027)

Meh. Demagogues may inflame some sin, but they're tapping an ember that's in every human heart, saved or otherwise.

Re:Tea Party, Occupy (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 months ago | (#45074511)

Yes, Original Sin exists. But that doesn't mean we should let the Demagogues flame it.

Re:Tea Party, Occupy (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45074869)

So you're agreeing that this class warfare talk is substantially a distraction?

Re:Tea Party, Occupy (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 months ago | (#45082407)

Class warfare exists- it's all from the top down though. It is the minority of owners against everybody else- the Tea Party recognized that first, Occupy second (liberals were late to that party). It isn't just envy- it is an outright attack on the poor and middle class on several fronts, not just in the market but also in population control measures to rid the rich of the "surplus population", and now, health care.

Re:Tea Party, Occupy (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45083843)

Yes, and Common Core and Agenda 21 are in this category.
Basically, the State is godless, and any of its offerings are corrupt.

Re:Tea Party, Occupy (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 months ago | (#45086359)

And, of course, the age old NMMS 200.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>