Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Life, the Universe and Everything (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Tales of Your New Republican Majority! (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6303)

bjkeefe 05-04-2011 04:21 PM

Tales of Your [strike]New[/strike] Old Republican Majority!
 
Any comment would be superfluous.

The headline:

Quote:

Blackwater’s New Ethics Chief: John Ashcroft
(h/t: Ken Layne)

handle 05-04-2011 04:25 PM

Re: Tales of Your [strike]New[/strike] Old Republican Majority!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 207316)
Any comment would be superfluous.

The headline:



(h/t: Ken Layne)

What could possibly go wrong?

bjkeefe 05-06-2011 11:23 AM

Florida priorities
 
McClatchy is reporting that the Republican-controlled Florida legislature has passed a bill that will require welfare recipients to submit to drug testing. The bill "is headed to Gov. Rick Scott, who called it one of his legislative priorities."

Insert joke about nanny state here.

Penalties:

Quote:

Recipients who test positive for drugs would lose their benefits for a year. If they fail a second time, they lose the benefits for three years. Parents who test positive must designate another adult to receive benefits on behalf of their children.
Just to make this bill completely teabaggerrific: the welfare recipients will be required to pay for their own tests.

And of course: "The measure provides no money for substance abuse treatment."

(h/t: Riley Waggaman)

bjkeefe 05-06-2011 03:48 PM

Today's GOP: Big Balls? Small Brains?
 
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UXTYEUoqWn...d_Shelby_5.jpg

Oh, you guessed it. Why not both?

Forty-four of your Republican Senators, led by Richard Shelby of Alabama (pictured above), have "sent a letter to President Obama" calling for "common sense reforms" to his proposed new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Here is the best:

Quote:

• Establish a safety-and-soundness check for the prudential financial regulators, who oversee the safety and soundness of financial institutions. This would help ensure that excessive regulations do not needlessly cause bank failures.
Emph. added.

Thers and DDay have more detailed analysis of this latest hamstringing attempt by the GOP.

(pic. source)

bjkeefe 05-12-2011 07:53 PM

Re: Speaking of ethics investigations ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 205262)
But wait! New developments!

Quote:

Senator Ensign to Resign Amid Inquiry

[...]
[...]

UPDATE: Looks like there's a chance this might not be the last we hear about this:

Quote:

Ensign Resigns, But Details of Ethics Probe May Yet Emerge

[...]

And emerge they have. Says Justin Elliot:

Quote:

A devastating report on the Ensign affair

If you read just one report from the Senate Ethics Committee this year … make it the 75-pager just released on John Ensign, his affair with a campaign staffer married to another Ensign aide, and the subsequent botched coverup.

Ensign resigned from the Senate last month. But the ethics committee is referring its findings to the Justice Department, alleging that Ensign may have committed crimes including obstruction of justice and violation of federal election law.
Elliot continues on in his post to hit some of the other high points of the report (don't miss the juicy C Street parts!) and has a Scribd version of it embedded in the post. You can also download a copy from here or direct from the Senate's website (PDF).

http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/3463/johnensign.png
(Picture taken by someone kneeling in front of John Ensign?)

Other quick bits from other bloggers/reporters, if (like me) the phrase "If you read just one report from the Senate Ethics Committee this year" made you snicker:

• "Tom Coburn Helped Cover Up John Ensign Affair: Senate Ethics Report"

• "Rick Santorum tipped off John Ensign, report says"

• "'Credible evidence' against John Ensign in sex and lobbying scandal, Senate panel says" -- includes some statements from Ensign's attorney.

• "'Put Your Pants On And Go Home'" - gotta have a Weigel post, so chiwhi will know what to respond to!

(pic. source)

stephanie 05-14-2011 11:34 AM

Re: Tales of Your [strike]New[/strike] Old Republican Majority!
 
I don't think we've talked about Rand Paul's bizarre "right to health care equals enslaving doctors" argument here yet.

Quote taken from Steven Benen at the Political Animal:

Quote:

[Y]ou have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses.

Basically, once you imply a belief in a right to someone’s services — do you have a right to plumbing? Do you have a right to water? Do you have right to food? — you’re basically saying you believe in slavery.

I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to health care. You have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free health care would be.
First, given that people in the US do have a right to counsel, I guess I'm already a slave, then. Stop whining and get in line, Rand.

Second, I like the reductio ad absurdum for the right to health care. Oh, yeah, if you believe in that, what other crazy things might you believe in, that humans have a right to food and water? Enslaver! Statist! Socialist!

operative 05-14-2011 12:12 PM

Re: Tales of Your [strike]New[/strike] Old Republican Majority!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 208909)
I don't think we've talked about Rand Paul's bizarre "right to health care equals enslaving doctors" argument here yet.

Quote taken from Steven Benen at the Political Animal:



First, given that people in the US do have a right to counsel, I guess I'm already a slave, then. Stop whining and get in line, Rand.

Second, I like the reductio ad absurdum for the right to health care. Oh, yeah, if you believe in that, what other crazy things might you believe in, that humans have a right to food and water? Enslaver! Statist! Socialist!

The flaw with comparing law to medicine is that a nation with socialized medicine owns all doctors. While there is a right to council, this is provided by a market mechanism in which some (and, I'd say, generally poorer) attorneys choose to work for the state providing council, while others opt to go into private industry. Your analogy would only work if the state absorbed the entire field and forced all lawyers to be paid servants of the state. Then you would be a slave, because you would not be able to market your service.

stephanie 05-14-2011 12:27 PM

Re: Tales of Your [strike]New[/strike] Old Republican Majority!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 208917)
The flaw with comparing law to medicine is that a nation with socialized medicine owns all doctors. While there is a right to council, this is provided by a market mechanism in which some (and, I'd say, generally poorer) attorneys choose to work for the state providing council, while others opt to go into private industry. Your analogy would only work if the state absorbed the entire field and forced all lawyers to be paid servants of the state. Then you would be a slave, because you would not be able to market your service.

That assumes that everyone who says "we have a right to health care" (or water or food) is suggesting that we are demanding that we socialize an entire field and make all who work in that field become "paid servants of the state," which is of course untrue. (Also, being a government employee does not make you a slave. Way to minimize slavery.)

Also, it assumes that what Paul is railing against bears any relationship to the above, which is also, of course, untrue.

So either Paul is lying or he doesn't mean to limit his comments in the way you have tried to defend and justify them and thus he considers me a slave (oh no!).

operative 05-14-2011 12:30 PM

Re: Tales of Your [strike]New[/strike] Old Republican Majority!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 208926)
That assumes that everyone who says "we have a right to health care" (or water or food) is suggesting that we are demanding that we socialize an entire field and make all who work in that field become "paid servants of the state," which is of course untrue.

Also, it assumes that what Paul is railing against bears any relationship to the above, which is also, of course, untrue.

So either Paul is lying or he doesn't mean to limit his comments in the way you have tried to defend and justify them and thus he considers me a slave (oh no!).

One can have a right to council in a market system due to the nature of the service: it is not immediately necessary, and the trial process can take quite a while. I don't see where that can be applied to the medical field, which is why establishing a 'right' will likely always lead to socialized medicine.

stephanie 05-14-2011 12:57 PM

Re: Tales of Your [strike]New[/strike] Old Republican Majority!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 208928)
One can have a right to council in a market system due to the nature of the service: it is not immediately necessary, and the trial process can take quite a while. I don't see where that can be applied to the medical field, which is why establishing a 'right' will likely always lead to socialized medicine.

This is such nonsense that I can't believe you don't realize it.

First of all, when we talk about a right to health care (or food, water, and shelter), we are generally talking about what we think a state has an obligation to provide or protect. Basically, about human rights. To try and twist that into "I will be forced to provide care to everyone personally, with no right to determine when I work, etc." is simply nutty. We do recognize that people have a right to food and water, yet that does not mean that we have enslaved our farmers or grocery store clerks or waiters. It's, frankly, ridiculous, and your need to defend it discredits your position, I think.

Second, we do (and did, prior to the current reform) recognize a right to health care. That's why we don't let emergency rooms turn away patients, why we have Medicaid and SCHIP and Medicare, to make sure that those unable to purchase health care without help will have the help they need. The point of the recent reform was in large part to address the gaps in the plans we had in place, not a huge change with regard to how we think of the issue. (Ed. The most extreme common position in the US right now -- which I share -- is that we'd be better off with the government paying for (in essence, covering, as an insurer) some base level of services for everyone, funded by taxes, and then people paying for private insurance for whatever else they wanted (or just paying out of pocket). This might increase the burden of slavery on all us tax payers, of course -- I know how the libertarian sorts think of taxes -- but I don't see how this makes doctors more "enslaved" than they are now, simply because they might be compensated by the government rather than BCBS or Aetna or whoever.)

Third, given the complete carelessness with how "socialized medicine" is used its hard to tell, but presumably Paul (and you) are claiming that doctors in all countries with some kind of universal care are slaves. Well, okay, if you think that argument is reasonable, bully for you, I guess. I think it's insulting to what slavery was, as I said.

Fourth, if the idea is that if we have some kind of state-provided health care (emergency rooms can't turn you away, Medicare!) or state-provided food (food stamps, federal funding for food kitchens, etc.) or the like that will turn all in those fields into slaves some day, because of the slippery slope or something, that again seems kind of crazy and clearly unsupported by the actual facts. I also don't see how that differs from by "right to counsel" argument (especially since the "right to counsel" is not just something we've enacted into law or a belief in a human right, but something we claim is in the Constitution).

For the record, unlike the effect of the health care reform (or Medicare, etc.) on doctors, the "right to counsel" as applied does mean that I could get appointed to represent someone by the state bar (and have been). Therefore, if Rand Paul is a slave, I'm way more of a slave. Where's my 40 acres and my mule?

Edit: ooh, but he's now a government employee. Hmm, that might change things.

bjkeefe 05-14-2011 01:00 PM

Re: Tales of Your [strike]New[/strike] Old Republican Majority!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 208932)
This is such nonsense that I can't believe you don't realize it.

First of all, when we talk about a right to health care (or food, water, and shelter), we are generally talking about what we think a state has an obligation to provide or protect. Basically, about human rights. To try and twist that into "I will be forced to provide care to everyone personally, with no right to determine when I work, etc." is simply nutty. We do recognize that people have a right to food and water, yet that does not mean that we have enslaved our farmers or grocery store clerks or waiters. It's, frankly, ridiculous, and your need to defend it discredits your position, I think.

Second, we do (and did, prior to the current reform) recognize a right to health care. That's why we don't let emergency rooms turn away patients, why we have Medicaid and SCHIP and Medicare, to make sure that those unable to purchase health care without help will have the help they need. The point of the recent reform was in large part to address the gaps in the plans we had in place, not a huge change with regard to how we think of the issue.

Third, given the complete carelessness with how "socialized medicine" is used its hard to tell, but presumably Paul (and you) are claiming that doctors in all countries with some kind of universal care are slaves. Well, okay, if you think that argument is reasonable, bully for you, I guess. I think its insulting to what slavery was, as I said.

Fourth, if the idea is that if we have some kind of state-provided health care (emergency rooms can't turn you away, Medicare!) or state-provided food (food stamps, federal funding for food kitchens, etc.) or the like that will turn all in those fields into slaves some day, because of the slippery slope or something, that again seems kind of crazy and clearly unsupported by the actual facts. I also don't see how that differs from by "right to counsel" argument (especially since the "right to counsel" is not just something we've enacted into law or a belief in a human right, but something we claim is in the Constitution).

For the record, unlike the effect of the health care reform (or Medicare, etc.) on doctors, the "right to counsel" as applied does mean that I could get appointed to represent someone by the state bar (and have been). Therefore, if Rand Paul is a slave, I'm way more of a slave. Where's my 40 acres and my mule?

Great answer.

One additional point you might have made, given that you were addressing a Free Market fundamentalist: there is no compulsion that anyone become a doctor; since all doctors are perfectly free to take up other jobs at anytime they like, they are not slaves. This would be true even if we had some totalitarian single payer health care system, which of course we don't, and won't, for the foreseeable future, Dumbass (and Not Even A Real Doctor) Rand Paul's imagination notwithstanding.

operative 05-14-2011 01:13 PM

Re: Tales of Your [strike]New[/strike] Old Republican Majority!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 208932)
This is such nonsense that I can't believe you don't realize it.

First of all, when we talk about a right to health care (or food, water, and shelter), we are generally talking about what we think a state has an obligation to provide or protect. Basically, about human rights. To try and twist that into "I will be forced to provide care to everyone personally, with no right to determine when I work, etc." is simply nutty. We do recognize that people have a right to food and water, yet that does not mean that we have enslaved our farmers or grocery store clerks or waiters. It's, frankly, ridiculous, and your need to defend it discredits your position, I think.

You say 'we' but I don't recognize a 'right' to food or water. My view of rights begins and ends with that which a person can do on their own. A person can speak, write, or vote as he or she wishes. A person is supposed to have the right of private property, but we've been getting away from that. The nation has the obligation to maintain a system that allows the individual to freely practice these rights. That's all.


Quote:

Second, we do (and did, prior to the current reform) recognize a right to health care. That's why we don't let emergency rooms turn away patients,
I view that as only a recognition that it is entirely impossible to check if a person is able to pay for service where minutes and even seconds can decide whether they will live and die.

Quote:

why we have Medicaid and SCHIP and Medicare,
Both of which should be privatized.

Quote:

to make sure that those unable to purchase health care without help will have the help they need.
This again is flawed. The government assists students in going to college. This does not mean that there is a "right" to attend college. The government subsidizes housing. This does not mean that owning a home is a "right." The notion that government assistance entails a fundamental right just isn't sound.


Quote:

The point of the recent reform was in large part to address the gaps in the plans we had in place, not a huge change with regard to how we think of the issue.
It is true that our system is not truly coherent. We have aspects that reach in the direction of socialized medicine but we also have market influences. But that doesn't mean that we are and should be moving down the road to socialized medicine. We can easily fix the inefficiencies with more of a free market approach. (Note that I do support government subsidies in truly extreme circumstances in which the price system will be functional).

Assisting people in extreme circumstances with having the ability to purchase health insurance is different than establishing it as a universal 'right'.


Quote:

Third, given the complete carelessness with how "socialized medicine" is used its hard to tell, but presumably Paul (and you) are claiming that doctors in all countries with some kind of universal care are slaves. Well, okay, if you think that argument is reasonable, bully for you, I guess. I think its insulting to what slavery was, as I said.
I can understand where people would take offense to the use of the term. I wouldn't equate doctors in socialized medicine countries to slaves from the American past. The point is that if one is not free to market one's goods and services, then one is not truly free. I do not see how this is disputable--you can object to the specific rhetoric, but I would say that the general point stands.


Quote:

Fourth, if the idea is that if we have some kind of state-provided health care (emergency rooms can't turn you away, Medicare!) or state-provided food (food stamps, federal funding for food kitchens, etc.) or the like that will turn all in those fields into slaves some day, because of the slippery slope or something, that again seems kind of crazy and clearly unsupported by the actual facts. I also don't see how that differs from by "right to counsel" argument (especially since the "right to counsel" is not just something we've enacted into law or a belief in a human right, but something we claim is in the Constitution).

For the record, unlike the effect of the health care reform (or Medicare, etc.) on doctors, the "right to counsel" as applied does mean that I could get appointed to represent someone by the state bar (and have been). Therefore, if Rand Paul is a slave, I'm way more of a slave. Where's my 40 acres and my mule?

Edit: ooh, but he's now a government employee. Hmm, that might change things.
I admit that I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of the legal system. I presume that you're not by trade a public attorney, but the state can still compel you to give your services to an individual? I'd certainly call that a lack of freedom.

Note that one other way that the legal system functions differently than the medical field is that in the criminal justice system, the State brings a charge against an individual who is presumed innocent. In other words, the state initiates action against someone and as a result of initiating action against them, extends an additional right--it is essentially a right to protection from the state.

Ocean 05-14-2011 02:26 PM

Re: Tales of Your [strike]New[/strike] Old Republican Majority!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 208932)
This is such nonsense that I can't believe you don't realize it.

First of all, when we talk about a right to health care (or food, water, and shelter), we are generally talking about what we think a state has an obligation to provide or protect. Basically, about human rights. To try and twist that into "I will be forced to provide care to everyone personally, with no right to determine when I work, etc." is simply nutty. We do recognize that people have a right to food and water, yet that does not mean that we have enslaved our farmers or grocery store clerks or waiters. It's, frankly, ridiculous, and your need to defend it discredits your position, I think.

Second, we do (and did, prior to the current reform) recognize a right to health care. That's why we don't let emergency rooms turn away patients, why we have Medicaid and SCHIP and Medicare, to make sure that those unable to purchase health care without help will have the help they need. The point of the recent reform was in large part to address the gaps in the plans we had in place, not a huge change with regard to how we think of the issue. (Ed. The most extreme common position in the US right now -- which I share -- is that we'd be better off with the government paying for (in essence, covering, as an insurer) some base level of services for everyone, funded by taxes, and then people paying for private insurance for whatever else they wanted (or just paying out of pocket). This might increase the burden of slavery on all us tax payers, of course -- I know how the libertarian sorts think of taxes -- but I don't see how this makes doctors more "enslaved" than they are now, simply because they might be compensated by the government rather than BCBS or Aetna or whoever.)

Third, given the complete carelessness with how "socialized medicine" is used its hard to tell, but presumably Paul (and you) are claiming that doctors in all countries with some kind of universal care are slaves. Well, okay, if you think that argument is reasonable, bully for you, I guess. I think it's insulting to what slavery was, as I said.

Fourth, if the idea is that if we have some kind of state-provided health care (emergency rooms can't turn you away, Medicare!) or state-provided food (food stamps, federal funding for food kitchens, etc.) or the like that will turn all in those fields into slaves some day, because of the slippery slope or something, that again seems kind of crazy and clearly unsupported by the actual facts. I also don't see how that differs from by "right to counsel" argument (especially since the "right to counsel" is not just something we've enacted into law or a belief in a human right, but something we claim is in the Constitution).

For the record, unlike the effect of the health care reform (or Medicare, etc.) on doctors, the "right to counsel" as applied does mean that I could get appointed to represent someone by the state bar (and have been). Therefore, if Rand Paul is a slave, I'm way more of a slave. Where's my 40 acres and my mule?

Edit: ooh, but he's now a government employee. Hmm, that might change things.

I agree with your argument, Stephanie.

I would say it's rather obvious that even socialized health care would not amount to enslaving physicians or anything remotely similar to that. It's such a stupid idea that it makes me wonder how this Ron Paul made it through medical school, or whether he's plainly being dishonest and misrepresenting. The latter wouldn't surprise me considering his tricks about being "board" certified.

Good point about Paul being a government employee. Politicians are then by definition slaves. No competition or free market. No wonder these libertarians want to eliminate government. They've been thinking they're antislavery all this time. Perhaps they need to learn about economic slavery.

operative 05-14-2011 02:46 PM

Re: Tales of Your [strike]New[/strike] Old Republican Majority!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 208941)
I agree with your argument, Stephanie.

I would say it's rather obvious that even socialized health care would not amount to enslaving physicians or anything remotely similar to that. It's such a stupid idea that it makes me wonder how this Ron Paul made it through medical school, or whether he's plainly being dishonest and misrepresenting. The latter wouldn't surprise me considering his tricks about being "board" certified.

Good point about Paul being a government employee. Politicians are then by definition slaves. No competition or free market. No wonder these libertarians want to eliminate government. They've been thinking they're antislavery all this time. Perhaps they need to learn about economic slavery.

*Rand, not Ron

And if there is any relationship between intelligence and political ideology (not sure that there is), level of statism would be inverse to IQ. People with lower IQs tend not to measure short term vs. long term rewards and as a result engage in activities that do not advance their standing (such as wasting money on cigarettes and the lottery). They then expect the state to make up for their lack of advancement by funneling more successful peoples' resources to them. I'd wager (having seen no scholarly investigation into the matter) that libertarians are on average the smartest and the highest educated of all political groups in America.

bjkeefe 05-17-2011 09:42 AM

It's too bad the GOP base already hates him
 
Because this revelation would be a good thing to have handy every time someone mentioned the Clenis.

popcorn_karate 05-19-2011 07:15 PM

Re: Tales of Your [strike]New[/strike] Old Republican Majority!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 208946)
I'd wager (having seen no scholarly investigation into the matter) that libertarians are on average the smartest and the highest educated of all political groups in America.

i don't know about that, but i would wager that most libertarians have rich daddies.

Ocean 05-20-2011 02:30 AM

Re: Tales of Your [strike]New[/strike] Old Republican Majority!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 209682)
i don't know about that, but i would wager that most libertarians have rich daddies.

I tend to agree with that. It's even sadder to think of those who don't have rich daddies, but are hoping to become rich by virtue of the free fantasy market. Considering the inconsistencies that are articulated by many of the so called libertarians, I highly question the intellectual capital contained in that ideology. It seems to be a disguise for plain old conservatives who want to self define with a trendier label. Especially those who are libertarians only for the purpose of free markets/the rule of capitalism/ small government, but everything social is mostly conservative.

operative 05-20-2011 10:33 AM

Re: Tales of Your [strike]New[/strike] Old Republican Majority!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 209725)
I tend to agree with that. It's even sadder to think of those who don't have rich daddies, but are hoping to become rich by virtue of the free fantasy market. Considering the inconsistencies that are articulated by many of the so called libertarians, I highly question the intellectual capital contained in that ideology. It seems to be a disguise for plain old conservatives who want to self define with a trendier label. Especially those who are libertarians only for the purpose of free markets/the rule of capitalism/ small government, but everything social is mostly conservative.

I neither have a rich daddy nor an aspiration to become rich on the free market. I simply want freedom: the ability to keep most of what I earn and spend it as I see fit, to make decisions for myself, and to see business and innovation work as best they can. And there are many more like me. The notion that libertarianism is in the interests of the wealthy is utterly mistaken. Corporatism is in the interests of those with established wealth, and corporatism is utterly opposite of libertarianism. High taxes discourage new corporations starting and challenging old ones, as do special tax breaks and subsidies, all supported by the Democrats. The Democrats do far more to benefit the already-wealthy than libertarians would ever do.

Libertarianism requires the ability and willingness to think beyond short term payoffs to long term consequences, and to really examine the underpinnings of statist beliefs. It naturally follows that this is done moreso by people with more of an education.

bjkeefe 05-20-2011 01:32 PM

Re: Tales of Your [strike]New[/strike] Old Republican Majority!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 209725)
I tend to agree with that. It's even sadder to think of those who don't have rich daddies, but are hoping to become rich by virtue of the free fantasy market. Considering the inconsistencies that are articulated by many of the so called libertarians, I highly question the intellectual capital contained in that ideology. It seems to be a disguise for plain old conservatives who want to self define with a trendier label. Especially those who are libertarians only for the purpose of free markets/the rule of capitalism/ small government, but everything social is mostly conservative.

Agreed. While there are many libertarian lines of thought I can more or less get on board with, the libertarians who are always going on and on about Libertarian Philosophy and how self-reliant and educated they are and how Teh Free Market will solve all of humankind's woes -- i.e., the glibertarians -- are basically just selfish snots who don't have the stones to be honest about their selfishness, but who need some sort of pseudo-intellectual patter to disguise the flavor, even in their own mouths.

handle 05-20-2011 02:34 PM

Re: Tales of Your [strike]New[/strike] Old Republican Majority!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 209761)
Agreed. While there are many libertarian lines of thought I can more or less get on board with, the libertarians who are always going on and on about Libertarian Philosophy and how self-reliant and educated they are and how Teh Free Market will solve all of humankind's woes -- i.e., the glibertarians -- are basically just selfish snots who don't have the stones to be honest about their selfishness, but who need some sort of pseudo-intellectual patter to disguise the flavor, even in their own mouths.

Yeah, well if you are not on board with extreme free market ideology, then you are statist, Marxist, and Keynesian! We must implement Rand Paul's ideals now or become badhat's foodstamp country. Those are the only options! They know what side you commies are on already.

OP's love of Hayek reminds me of Lennin's love of Marx. I hope we never get the opportunity to learn the hard way that these opposite paths eventually arrive at the same destination.

This country was formed with the intent of balancing power, and ideological approaches IMHO, but why not throw that out the window? What could go wrong? OP will be in Singapore or somewhere, enjoying the fruits of a global plutocracy by then anyway.

handle 05-20-2011 03:07 PM

Re: Tales of Your [strike]New[/strike] Old Republican Majority!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 209742)
I neither have a rich daddy nor an aspiration to become rich on the free market. I simply want freedom: the ability to keep most of what I earn and spend it as I see fit, to make decisions for myself, and to see business and innovation work as best they can. And there are many more like me. The notion that libertarianism is in the interests of the wealthy is utterly mistaken. Corporatism is in the interests of those with established wealth, and corporatism is utterly opposite of libertarianism. High taxes discourage new corporations starting and challenging old ones, as do special tax breaks and subsidies, all supported by the Democrats. The Democrats do far more to benefit the already-wealthy than libertarians would ever do.

Libertarianism requires the ability and willingness to think beyond short term payoffs to long term consequences, and to really examine the underpinnings of statist beliefs. It naturally follows that this is done moreso by people with more of an education.

Notice how they leave out the cornerstone unspoken (unconscious?) underpinning of the sunny ideal, summed up by the phrase:
"and fuck everyone else"*.



*Unless of course you are willing to accept Utah Jesus into your heart, then you qualify for rapture stamps, redeemable at Walmarts everywhere.

TwinSwords 05-20-2011 03:22 PM

Re: Tales of Your [strike]New[/strike] Old Republican Majority!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 209780)
Yeah, well if you are not on board with extreme free market ideology, then you are statist, Marxist, and Keynesian! We must implement Rand Paul's ideals now or become badhats foodstamp country. Those are the only options! They know what side you commies are on already.

OP's love of Hayek reminds me of Lennin's love of Marx. I hope we never get the opportunity to learn the hard way that these opposite paths eventually arrive at the same destination.

This country was formed with the intent of balancing power, and ideological approaches IMHO, but why not throw that out the window? What could go wrong? OP will be in Singapore or somewhere, enjoying the fruits of a global plutocracy by then anyway.

I'm not sure op has any skills that will be of use to the plutocrats, so I can't see how he'd market himself in Singapore. I suspect in real life he's something like a homeschooling consultant, with no skills marketable outside of Utah, the Deep South, or the fundamentalist communities sprinkled throughout the rest of rural America. Learning to recite wingnut platitudes isn't exactly a marketable skill anywhere else. And while the plutocrats will always have need for people to provide an intellectual justification for their plundering, op's not one of the ones they would choose to do their bidding, simply because he can't conceal his total depravity, which keeps surfacing in post after post. Depravity appeals enormously to the GOP base; probably not so much to people in Singapore.

handle 05-20-2011 03:31 PM

Re: Tales of Your [strike]New[/strike] Old Republican Majority!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 209789)
I'm not sure op has any skills that will be of use to the plutocrats, so I can't see how he'd market himself in Singapore. I suspect in real life he's something like a homeschooling consultant, with no skills marketable outside of Utah, the Deep South, or the fundamentalist communities sprinkled throughout the rest of rural America. Learning to recite wingnut platitudes isn't exactly a marketable skill anywhere else. And while the plutocrats will always have need for people to provide an intellectual justification for their plundering, op's not one of the ones they would choose to do their bidding, simply because he can't conceal his total depravity, which keeps surfacing in post after post. Depravity appeals enormously to the GOP base; probably not so much to people in Singapore.

True, but he's learning Chinese, and wants to relo to Hong Kong or something, He will teach them Hayek free market English speak, or at least that's what I have gleaned he thinks might happen.
How do you say unicorn in Chinese?

Seems like the real plutocrats have unleashed this think-tank astroturf movement, and it's blowing up in their faces, kind of a hoot to watch.

bjkeefe 05-27-2011 04:33 PM

Zombie Reagan Lives! "Trees Cause Air Pollution," v2.0
 
Or maybe Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) is just taking one for the team -- dumbing things down even further to smooth the way for Sarah Palin's threatened entrance into the presidential race. In any case, he …

Quote:

... needs to hit the science books, forestry experts suggest.

They reached that conclusion after hearing Mr. Rohrabacher declare during a Congressional hearing on Wednesday that clear-cutting the world’s rain forests might eliminate the production of greenhouse gases responsible for climate change.
(h/t: Wonkette Jr.)

handle 05-27-2011 04:47 PM

Re: Zombie Reagan Lives! "Trees Cause Air Pollution," v2.0
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 211001)
Or maybe Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) is just taking one for the team -- dumbing things down even further to smooth the way for Sarah Palin's threatened entrance into the presidential race. In any case, he …



(h/t: Wonkette Jr.)



I can help rite the speach:
Nature is not the solution to our problems. Nature is the problem!

Ocean 05-27-2011 05:20 PM

Re: Zombie Reagan Lives! "Trees Cause Air Pollution," v2.0
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 211001)
Or maybe Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) is just taking one for the team -- dumbing things down even further to smooth the way for Sarah Palin's threatened entrance into the presidential race. In any case, he …



(h/t: Wonkette Jr.)

He may have scrambled the words and he really meant that greenhouse gases by creating climate change, are going to make the whole world a rain forest. And that's clear cut science. Sort of. ;)

bjkeefe 05-27-2011 07:20 PM

Re: Zombie Reagan Lives! "Trees Cause Air Pollution," v2.0
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 211013)
He may have scrambled the words and he really meant that greenhouse gases by creating climate change, are going to make the whole world a rain forest. And that's clear cut science. Sort of. ;)

:)

I think you are capable of considerably more subtle thinking than the gentleman from California.

Also, new information to me:

Quote:

Rohrabacher served as assistant press secretary to the 1976 and 1980 presidential campaigns of Ronald Reagan.[1] From 1981 to 1988, he was one of President Reagan's senior speech writers. During his tenure at the White House, Rohrabacher played a leading role in the formulation of the Reagan Doctrine. He also helped formulate President Reagan's Economic Bill of Rights ...
Plenty of time to talk about the terrorist trees.

thouartgob 06-01-2011 10:42 PM

Re: Zombie Reagan Lives! "Trees Cause Air Pollution," v2.0
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 211038)
:)

I think you are capable of considerably more subtle thinking than the gentleman from California.

Also, new information to me:



Plenty of time to talk about the terrorist trees.

Ah What's Old is New again

Quote:

The Genius of Ronald Reagan: Direct Quotes from the Gipper Himself

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981

"A tree is a tree. How many more do you have to look at?" -- Ronald Reagan, 1966, opposing expansion of Redwood National Park as governor of California


"Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born. "

"I have flown twice over Mt St. Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about." -- Ronald Reagan, 1980. (Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.)

"Facts are stupid things." -- Ronald Reagan, 1988, a misquote of John Adams, "Facts are stubborn things."

"We think there is a parallel between federal involvement in education and the decline in profit over recent years." -- Ronald Reagan, 1983. (It's always good to run the Department of Education to make money.)

"Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal." Ronald Reagan, 1976, on his failed campaign for the Republican nomination. (Moron.)

"The best minds are not in government." -- Ronald Reagan. (Not in his government anyway.)

"You can't help those who simply will not be helped. One problem that we've had, even in the best of times, is people who are sleeping on the grates, the homeless who are homeless, you might say, by choice." -- President Reagan, 1/31/84, on Good Morning America, defending his administration against charges of callousness.

On 8/24/85 President Reagan tells an interviewer that the "reformist administration" of South African president P.W. Botha has made significant progress on the racial front. "They have eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country," says the President, "the type of thing where hotels and restaurants and places of entertainment and so forth were segregated - that has all been eliminated." (In response to questions a few days later as to whether President Reagan actually thought racial segregation has been eliminated in South Africa, Larry Speakes said "Not totally, no.")

"The American Petroleum Institute filed suit against the EPA [and] charged that the agency was suppressing a scientific study for fear it might be misinterpreted... The suppressed study reveals that 80 percent of air pollution comes not from chimneys and auto exhaust pipes, but from plants and trees." Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, in 1979. (There is no scientific data to support this assertion.)

"You know, if I listened to him long enough, I would be convinced that we're in an economic downturn, and that people are homeless, and people are going without food and medical attention, and that we've got to do something about the unemployed." -- President Reagan, 6/8/88, accusing Michael Dukakis of misleading campaign rhetoric.
Lest we forget that the Contras were the moral equivalent of our founding fathers


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.