[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

It's code for 'idiotic troll'.

I gave substantive information directly related to the subject of the thread. Would you like a definition for "troll" now or should I wait for you to figure out how that slobber got on your shirt?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy: I'm not going to go over laundry lists with you. That would require too much of my time for very little gain. We could do tit for tat all day, but it will change very little, and I think you know that.

You've been an unashamed and very vocal supporter of Obama besson. I've not been near as vocal about anyone because until recently, I wasn't even interested in voting this time around. The "tit for tat" game would be absolutely worthless with me. Maybe next time you post a challenge, you'll word it more like;

I would like any Republican here EXCEPT EBUDDY who thinks that Obama is any one of these things actually make a case and provide an appropriate definition.

You missed the motivation behind my question, maybe intentionally so, I don't know...

You may have missed what motivated me. Maybe you said the above intentionally, maybe not.

At what point does somebody officially become Socialist? The whole tax system in this country supports a redistribution of wealth, does that make every government that has supported it socialist? Every government that has supported the other things I have listed?

When you add one socialist policy to another socialist policy-you have two socialist policies. If you add another socialist policy, you have three socialist policies. At what point do we say; "hey, I'm tired of socialist policies like the tax structure that do not work."?

Then, what else should we call one who intends to add socialist policies, compassionate conservative?

There is no real answer, because the issue is not a binary thing. Most Republicans (maybe even you) and Democrats feel certain ways about certain issues that can be mapped all over the political spectrum. It is silly and wildly inaccurate to cling to labels that attempt to identify others by looking at a few variables, when identification is a personal reflection of where our tendencies lie as a whole. Obama does not identify himself as a socialist, and if you compare his positions to actual socialist party platforms, I think you can safely say that America and the vast majority of its people (including those in both major parties) are very far away from being Socialist.

Which is precisely why Obama will not be elected in November. Assuming anyone is paying attention to the policies and putting them in context of a host of facts regarding the man. We're going to differ on "a few variables" and whether or not Obama calling himself a socialist means anything at all. Maybe you're more prepared to accept a politician at face value, I'm not.

America is clearly fiercely proud of its Democracy and free market/capitalism, and is built around these principles in its entirety. To pretend that these principles lie in some sort of fragile state is just as misleading and manipulative as me trying to tell others that you are a Democrat.

No, in fact this election will be an interesting way of determining how just how "fragile" most of us feel our proud democracy and free market capitalist system is. I have a hunch you'll be disappointed. I'll be first to eat crow if I'm wrong besson.

[besson3c]

ebuddy: I don't want you or anybody else to be eating crow. Taking this conversation in a different, but related direction, this also bugs me. Actually, to be blunt about it, I find it disgusting...

What is at stake here is the welfare of the country, not you being right, me being right, me eating crow, whatever. You feel strongly about John McCain, and I feel fairly strongly against him, but to turn this into some sort of competitive sport we obsess over is just wrong, in my opinion.

Whichever horse wins the race (to keep on the competitive sport analogy), clearly compromises are going to be necessary, cooperation is going to be necessary, and finding the middle ground is going to be necessary, unless the Republicans win both the presidency and congress/senate by large margins (which is looking unlikely, particularly with regards to the latter). Even with these hypothetical victories, support from the general population is a plus so that participation in our democracy is encouraged, so that the general public does not continue being willfully uninformed (which is increasingly likely if the population feels like their voices do not matter), and so that the media doesn't get away with being the retards they are as easily.

Compromises are much more difficult in such a toxic environment, and in many cases getting nothing done as a result is harmful to our society. I know you think that Obama's message of unity is a load of ****, and you have every rational reason to be cynical about it from multiple perspectives, but it is clear that this message is resonating with the public to some degree. Most people are not as ideological as you, ebuddy - not as passionate and obsessed as we all are. They just want to get **** done, want our government to function and pass legislation that needs to be passed. They don't care about dissecting who is to blame for political stalemate.

One thing that I *do* like about McCain is that he seems like less of a partisan animal than Bush. I hope this remains, because even if he loses he is still going to be a very important part of the Republican party.

Honestly, I think that politics in this country are seriously ****ed up right now. Maybe it has always been this way, I don't know, but it has basically become a very expensive, high stakes sport... A game of manipulation, of deception and obfuscation, and a game of making a shitload of money in the case of the media cashing in on this spectacle. Really, I often long to be back in Canada when I think about this... So much less intensity in their politics, less incredibly high stakes pressures, and less of a giant daily media circus. Have you ever watched their debates, ebuddy? So much different than ours. I'm not suggesting that Canada is superior, so please don't jump down my throat, I'm just saying that at times it would be nice to be able to escape this insanity. I guess I'm not much of a sports fan.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy: I don't want you or anybody else to be eating crow. Taking this conversation in a different, but related direction, this also bugs me. Actually, to be blunt about it, I find it disgusting...

What is at stake here is the welfare of the country, not you being right, me being right, me eating crow, whatever. You feel strongly about John McCain, and I feel fairly strongly against him, but to turn this into some sort of competitive sport we obsess over is just wrong, in my opinion.

To be clear, I don't feel as strongly for McCain as I do against Obama. McCain has got some real problems of his own that might make him appear a little ideologically conflicted. I was going to stay out of this election because I've more appreciated the ability to use my vote in support of policy, not against policy. You feel strongly for Obama and have made that quite clear. You challenged "republicans" (assuming there are no democrats likewise concerned about Obama's policy) to define and give examples that might affirm the accusations. I simply addressed this portion of your post. In closing you had mentioned that it was both "misleading" and "manipulative" to suggest that our democracy might lie in a fragile state. I couldn't disagree more and offered this election as proof that most will agree with me. I offered in fairness that if I'm wrong, I'll admit it. That's all. This wasn't borne of some sort of sportsman mentality. You seemed to suggest "who cares if Obama's platform does not align with American ideals of the free market/capitalism, he'll just conform." then you discuss the profundity of this election in terms of the welfare of this country? Policy is everything.

I find the whole notion of glossing over Obama's past, minimizing the influence his associations have had both in his life and in his policy wholly misleading. I find the mantra of "change" wholly manipulative and yet these are the very things you're railing against.

Whichever horse wins the race (to keep on the competitive sport analogy), clearly compromises are going to be necessary, cooperation is going to be necessary, and finding the middle ground is going to be necessary, unless the Republicans win both the presidency and congress/senate by large margins (which is looking unlikely, particularly with regards to the latter). Even with these hypothetical victories, support from the general population is a plus so that participation in our democracy is encouraged, so that the general public does not continue being willfully uninformed (which is increasingly likely if the population feels like their voices do not matter), and so that the media doesn't get away with being the retards they are as easily.

IMO the divide began with "Bush stole the election" and continued on with "Bush lied, people died", etc... It is not enough to disagree with one's platform, you must paint them and their supporters as somehow nefarious and deceitful. This is the kind of nonsense that wedged the divide we have today. It is not enough that Bush would give thrust to the policy of the former Administration on the most divisive issue of our time and had the full support of both sides of the aisle. When things got tough, they bailed on him. Plain and simple. Amnesia sets in just in time to drive another stake in the wedge. This is unfortunate. If McCain wins, this will not go away. It will only get worse. With regard to Obama, I've not tried to suggest that he is evil, nefarious or even deceitful as much as simply in support of failed socialist policy. This is where the debate should remain, a question of policy.

I believe it is a longer road from Obama to the center than it is McCain to the center. When it comes to compromise, cooperation, and middle ground one has a more established track record than the other. Immigration reform, campaign finance reform, participation in the gang of 14, and even some willingness to look at alternative solutions to health care. These are stances McCain has taken with a great deal of political risk. If you truly buy into these ideals, it should at least be acknowledged that McCain has exponentially more substantive experience of the above traits than Obama could demonstrate.

Compromises are much more difficult in such a toxic environment, and in many cases getting nothing done as a result is harmful to our society. I know you think that Obama's message of unity is a load of ****, and you have every rational reason to be cynical about it from multiple perspectives, but it is clear that this message is resonating with the public to some degree.

I agree. It helps that Obama is a brilliant orator. This is refreshing to say the least.

Most people are not as ideological as you, ebuddy - not as passionate and obsessed as we all are. They just want to get **** done, want our government to function and pass legislation that needs to be passed. They don't care about dissecting who is to blame for political stalemate.

Both politicians are talking about getting **** done. The decision of the voters is who has shown that they can get **** done and exactly what **** we're talking about. There will be a healthy mix of passion and ideology in this election. I wouldn't discount the importance of the platform.

One thing that I *do* like about McCain is that he seems like less of a partisan animal than Bush. I hope this remains, because even if he loses he is still going to be a very important part of the Republican party.

If you look at Bush's policy, there were only a couple of divisive issues and arguably the most divisive among them ironically was a policy that enjoyed immense bipartisan support. The "divide" has been entirely fabricated on the same premise you rail about in this thread. On many other things, Bush has alienated the conservative base and reached across the aisle. Unfortunately, this is not newsworthy.

Honestly, I think that politics in this country are seriously ****ed up right now. Maybe it has always been this way, I don't know, but it has basically become a very expensive, high stakes sport... A game of manipulation, of deception and obfuscation, and a game of making a shitload of money in the case of the media cashing in on this spectacle. Really, I often long to be back in Canada when I think about this... So much less intensity in their politics, less incredibly high stakes pressures, and less of a giant daily media circus. Have you ever watched their debates, ebuddy? So much different than ours. I'm not suggesting that Canada is superior, so please don't jump down my throat, I'm just saying that at times it would be nice to be able to escape this insanity. I guess I'm not much of a sports fan.

I'm not interested in jumping down anyone's throat unless it's apparent that someone needs to jump and no one will. I can completely understand you wanting a more civil discourse besson, but I can tell you that this is a pipe-dream under the current vitriol of the left. I'm not interested in arguing this tit-for-tat either because suffice it to say I'm rather firmly resolved in it having watched the entire affair unfold. I can see the same type of opposition to dissenting opinion in this forum on a daily basis. "fact, fact, fact." and "Oh yeah? Well you're a neo-con, Bushie-loving, Jesus is a moron, poop-butt stinky face!!!"

Civil discourse may have a better shot under Obama not because of Obama himself, but the constituencies of the opposing party. I don't think the answer is appeasement of the intolerant by putting their guy in office.

[besson3c]

Then I guess the thing is that we see things *totally* different, and we both must understand and be respectful of these differences.

I don't see Bush as having reached across the aisle at all. I see him as being fiercely ideological and loyal. The stacking the courts are a good example of this, as is the falling out of Paul O'Neil, Richard Clarke, etc. the cronyism of Michael Brown and the defense of Rumsfeld are also good examples of Bush valuing loyalty over competency. I see a lot of deception too: the insistence that we aren't waterboarding, that it isn't torture, the spying on Americans without right to do so, the way the war was sold and explained to the public, and failure to acknowledge the massive and unsustainable debt that has accumulated.

If you disagree with all or most of these ideas, and it sounds like you do, it is no wonder that you feel that Obama is far less moderate than I do - your idea of the center is in a much different place. I could try to make the case that you need some calibration with what you consider left right and center, and you could do the same for me, but clearly that will do no good. I do ask you this though: is there anything that you can find common ground on with the left? What did Bush do wrong? If you can't answer the latter, given that it is pretty clear that Bush has become an unpopular president, maybe it would be a good idea to at least *entertain* the idea that you might need a little calibration?

[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Just because a bunch of idiots latch on to an idea, that doesn't mean it's their idea.

I don't see free-marketers lining up to claim the idea for themselves.

As the originators are long dead, who would you claim the idea for in their absence?

[subego]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

I'm having a hard time seeing where you're going with this, the answer is a fairly meaningless 'yes'...

Are things such as ownership of property, ownership of capital goods and source of income meaningless in this context, or do you not see any similarities across the spectrum of publicly funded services with regards to those examples?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't see Bush as having reached across the aisle at all. I see him as being fiercely ideological and loyal.

NCLB, created in conjunction with Kennedy. Drug entitlement program. Iraq war, agreed upon by both parties. Reaching across the aisle was done on these, and more.

Of course, you would never see a Democrat reach across the aisle to accomplish conservative policy, so I don't know why there's such insistence on 'reaching across the aisle' - it only seems to benefit Democrats, never conservatives, and it's debatable whether or not it benefits Americans.

Earlier on, you spoke of compromises and the importance of getting things done. I want you to consider the importance of not compromising on principle, and the benefits of inaction (doing something, anything versus doing nothing at all) - If a principle is well-founded, it should not be compromised. If the opportunity is to do something rash or do nothing at all, I'm quite content with a government that doesn't act.

The government that governs least, governs best.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Then I guess the thing is that we see things *totally* different, and we both must understand and be respectful of these differences.

Fair enough.

I don't see Bush as having reached across the aisle at all. I see him as being fiercely ideological and loyal.

This is what kills me, there's a lot of talk about cooperation and divisiveness etcetera. I mention some pretty scathing things against Bush, but you insist he's "fiercely ideological" and "loyal" and "hasn't reached across the aisle at all."? At all? You simply won't budge at all. His immense amount of support for the Millennium challenge account development project and HIV/AIDS awareness in Africa for example means nothing to Democrats among the other examples that Vmarks mentioned? This is what I'm talking about, I'll give. Republicans will give, but there is such an absolute pathological hatred for this man that somehow none of his accomplishments can be acknowledged? I mean, I'd like to take a more fair approach and try to give folks more benefit of the doubt, but they keep proving me naive for doing it. Worse, none of this has anything to do with Obama, McCain, or this year's election.

The stacking the courts are a good example of this, as is the falling out of Paul O'Neil, Richard Clarke, etc. the cronyism of Michael Brown and the defense of Rumsfeld are also good examples of Bush valuing loyalty over competency.

These are okay examples, but there was partisan shenanigans on both sides of the aisle here with numerous blocked votes, etc...

With regard to Michael Brown, he's managed over 160 emergencies during his time in office including a host of hurricanes through Florida and tornadoes in the Midwest. One failure that included a wealth of incompetencies from both city and State officials waiting too long to allow the Federal response (you might know they need permission and for very good reason), letting busses sit under water without being mobilized, and poor local reaction after having tested this very scenario just 18 months prior. Of course, you're ready to string him up. No grey area at all to acknowledge. No give at all. Furthermore, why should a President throw members of his cabinet under the bus when the conclusion is already clear. In both cases they resigned. Do you think they really wanted to? Do you really think Obama is going to place a pro-lifer in the Supreme Court as a gesture of good will? None of these examples are exclusive to Republicans.

I see a lot of deception too: the insistence that we aren't waterboarding, that it isn't torture, the spying on Americans without right to do so, the way the war was sold and explained to the public, and failure to acknowledge the massive and unsustainable debt that has accumulated.

I've been a very vocal critic of how Bush has handled his Administration's lacking transparency and inability to openly and honestly address the public about these extremely controversial issues. While we may disagree on specifics, I completely agree with your assessment of the problem. I find the current state of our debt unacceptable and I hold a Republican President and the primarily Republican House and Senate greatly to account, but I gotta tell ya, it has only gotten worse since the Democrats have joined the party. These issues have an awful lot of grey area to cover in my opinion, but I'm not sure you're willing to acknowledge any of it.

That said, I don't believe in "guilty 'til proven innocent", I don't agree with; "the war was 'sold' to the public" unless you're ready to admit that not one of his talking points were originated by him. Not one. This is the kind of "turn tail and bail" stuff that drives me crazy about this debate. Then, someone will invariably accuse you of using Clinton to distract from Bush's incompetencies, but I've not heard Bush's name mentioned more than when another Republican is running for office.

If you disagree with all or most of these ideas, and it sounds like you do, it is no wonder that you feel that Obama is far less moderate than I do - your idea of the center is in a much different place.

I disagree. In fact, I've taken just about every little political gauge from a host of various universities and websites both domestically and otherwise and I'm almost without fail right down the middle; almost literally on the line. I personally feel that I've been very fair in this discussion. I've been willing to give you examples of what I dislike about Bush. I've been quick with facts to back my claims because I think they're important to any reasoned discussion. More honesty here besson, I'm not seeing any give from you at all. You don't want to talk about specifics. I'll assume you're busy. You claim to want non-divisive discourse, but your desire for it ends after the claim.

I could try to make the case that you need some calibration with what you consider left right and center, and you could do the same for me, but clearly that will do no good. I do ask you this though: is there anything that you can find common ground on with the left? What did Bush do wrong? If you can't answer the latter, given that it is pretty clear that Bush has become an unpopular president, maybe it would be a good idea to at least *entertain* the idea that you might need a little calibration?

Excellent question;
- I'm pro civil unions for all. I don't think the government should acknowledge any "marriage". I believe heterosexuals have done more than a sufficient job of destroying the definition of it. Gays should absolutely be allowed to visit loved ones in the hospital, bequeath death benefits to their partner, own a home together, be married and enjoy every benefit of it that heterosexuals do, etc...

- I'm against the death penalty. I find pro-lifers who support it somewhat conflicted ideologically.
- I'm against ridiculous penalties waged from the "war on drugs". There are far too many petty marijuana users and sellers hardening behind bars. If it were up to me, marijuana would be entirely legal.
- As one with a very rocky start to my adulthood found myself and my then girlfriend, now wife in need of WIC, Medicaid, and food stamps. I'm intimately familiar with both the pros and cons of these programs. I believe these programs already exist and the humane thing to do is to maintain them, but they are in dire need of reform. The problem is, it is a political football for both sides and the incredible amount of waste, fraud, and abuse; not to mention the problem of illegal immigration creating a dependancy that will never pay a dime in income taxes is draining it. There is a government solution in there somewhere so I've included it. It helped me and I'd want it to help others too. They've got to fix it if it is to continue successfully meeting the needs of our future.

Is this a good start? Are you prepared to show me why it's not you who needs calibration?

[lpkmckenna]

In answer to the thread title: It's stupid and crass to mention communism or fascism in a discussion about contemporary politics. That's why Godwin's Law exists - to keep discussion civil and on-topic. Hysterical label-throwing using means the speaker is an idiot.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

In answer to the thread title: It's stupid and crass to mention communism or fascism in a discussion about contemporary politics. That's why Godwin's Law exists - to keep discussion civil and on-topic. Hysterical label-throwing using means the speaker is an idiot.

.. or losing the discussion, That's usually when the name calling begins.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

In answer to the thread title: It's stupid and crass to mention communism or fascism in a discussion about contemporary politics.

So, if a regime is, in fact, turning commie or fascist how does one address the situation without mentioning commies or fascists?

Not allowing folks to mention those terms seems like a really good way to suppress dissent whilst undertaking the transformation into such regimes.

[RAILhead]

Kind of like Obama tried to get that reporter thrown in PRISON for writing a negative article about him? Kind of like TEH FAIRNESS DOCTRINE?

Yes, we know what Marxism is...

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, if a regime is, in fact, turning commie or fascist how does one address the situation without mentioning commies or fascists?

Not allowing folks to mention those terms seems like a really good way to suppress dissent whilst undertaking the transformation into such regimes.

Good question. Frankly, if a gov't is enacting authoritarian policies, it would be more constructive to attack each wrong-headed policy than lump them all together and call it "fascism." Bush is the most authoritarian president in 50 years, but I still wouldn't call him a fascist, because it would be more useful and more accurate to call him a war-monger or a torture-advocate or whatever.

And no political leader in the English world is advocating communism or fascism. Even the racist southerners of 30 years ago weren't fascists, and the Labour party of the 70s weren't communists, and no one is advocating anything near to those crazy policies these days. The political spectrum in the west is quite moderate, and the mainline parties are too similar to each other suggest any could be communists or fascists or any type of "extremism."

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

In answer to the thread title: It's stupid and crass to mention communism or fascism in a discussion about contemporary politics. That's why Godwin's Law exists - to keep discussion civil and on-topic. Hysterical label-throwing using means the speaker is an idiot.

Mike Godwin's 'law' does not exist at all for the reasons you think it does, and it doesn't state what you think that it does.

Godwin's law simply suggests that as a thread grows longer, the probability that someone will bring up Nazis will increase. It doesn't suggest that the thread ends, or that the person using it is using it incorrectly. Mike's (I don't know him personally, but he and I take part in some of the same mailing lists. I could email him if I wished.)
law is silent on the appropriacy of the invocation.

Godwin started the meme as both an experiment in memes, and to encourage people to think about the Holocaust and the notion that overusing the terms diminishes the horror of that genocide.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Mike Godwin's 'law' does not exist at all for the reasons you think it does, and it doesn't state what you think that it does.

You're right.

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Reaching across the aisle was done on [the Iraq war]

This reminds me of how when I was a kid, when someone used the phrase "bury the hatchet", I always imagined they meant "bury the hatchet... IN YOUR SKULL!"

Now, maybe you are using the term properly here, but it still reminds me of that.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Excellent question;
- I'm pro civil unions for all. I don't think the government should acknowledge any "marriage". I believe heterosexuals have done more than a sufficient job of destroying the definition of it. Gays should absolutely be allowed to visit loved ones in the hospital, bequeath death benefits to their partner, own a home together, be married and enjoy every benefit of it that heterosexuals do, etc...

- I'm against the death penalty. I find pro-lifers who support it somewhat conflicted ideologically.
- I'm against ridiculous penalties waged from the "war on drugs". There are far too many petty marijuana users and sellers hardening behind bars. If it were up to me, marijuana would be entirely legal.

Two, if not all three of these things are right wing, i.e. they value the individual over the state.

Back into the calibrator with you!

[Chongo]

Those are Libertarian positions.
As far as being pro death penalty and pro-life. The argument most often used is that one has been convicted in a court of law of a crime meriting the death penalty.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

Two, if not all three of these things are right wing, i.e. they value the individual over the state.

Strange way to define "right-wing." Of course, I think it's a confusing term and I avoid using it altogether.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by subego 

This reminds me of how when I was a kid, when someone used the phrase "bury the hatchet", I always imagined they meant "bury the hatchet... IN YOUR SKULL!"

I always thought it was hiding the murder weapon.

[Dakar V]

Yeah, I always think of bury the hatchet in someone's back. Not the most peaceful sounding phrase.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Strange way to define "right-wing."

How?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I think the more pressing question is: Do lefties know what fascism/communism/marxism/socialism is?

Most lefties I know are lefties because they think they support freedom yet don't realise that leftist policies can't be realised without a somewhat totalitarian regime oppressing at least part of the population.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

You forgot, and Godwin forgive me, Nazism. Anything that promotes the group over the individual is fascism/communism/marxism/socialism/nazism. The only difference is the mechanism of government control, whether directly or by proxy control of corporations.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No I didn't - I was simply typing the thread title out again, with modifications. I can't read half the crap in here because certain annoying people found their way into the ignore list.
I agree. It's a shame that some people are too stupid to understand this basic principle.

I think it boils down to collectivism v individualism. Collectivism is the basis for all four philosophies of the group over the individual. "From each, according to their ability. To each according their need." "Together we are everything, as individuals nothing." "We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

[Monique]

First, Steve Jobs can do whatever he pleases with his company.

Two, I agree terms like that are being miused.

To be a Nazi you need to believe that Jews and minorities are a plague and that they should be destroyed at all cost; the KKK is a nazi party.

There are different kind of communists and not all bad. The communists in Eastern Europe and Asia are more like dictatorship regimes. The real marxist communism could not work because it deals with human beings and it is quite utopic.

The western version has not been tried again.

The socialist are very interesting, because it works very well in many countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark and worked in France. In France it is a little utopic but the Western Socialists are not about removing freedom from our habits and vocabulary.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Monique 

First, Steve Jobs can do whatever he pleases with his company.

Actually, Apple is a publicly held company, so, Steve Jobs *can't* do what ever he wants with it and it isn't even *his* company. Apple belongs to the share holders and Jobs must justify every decision to them.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Two, if not all three of these things are right wing, i.e. they value the individual over the state.

Back into the calibrator with you!

Actually, these are issues that blur the divide between the left and the right. Still, an independent candidate running on this platform would likely take more votes away from a traditional Democratic or "left-wing" candidate than a classic "right-wing" candidate.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Actually, these are issues that blur the divide between the left and the right.

Why do you think that's the case?

IOW, why are these issues blurry and other issues aren't? Is that just the nature of these particular issues?

[Chongo]

Join us comrades!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Why do you think that's the case?

IOW, why are these issues blurry and other issues aren't? Is that just the nature of these particular issues?

Two of the three are more related to rule of law and the subsequent penalties of that law and differences in enforcement. The death penalty and drug laws. More rigid enforcement of these laws are traditionally held by the right. The reason these issues blur the generally accepted lines between "left" and "right" is that the right want these laws enforced as part of the ideal order of society and the left do not want you to lose faith in the State. In representing their constituencies, the left will often support marijuana laws and the death penalty by vote.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Two of the three are more related to rule of law and the subsequent penalties of that law and differences in enforcement. The death penalty and drug laws. More rigid enforcement of these laws are traditionally held by the right. The reason these issues blur the generally accepted lines between "left" and "right" is that the right want these laws enforced as part of the ideal order of society and the left do not want you to lose faith in the State. In representing their constituencies, the left will often support marijuana laws and the death penalty by vote.

Well, I assume there is no argument that having people keep their faith in the state is a left-wing idea, so the question remains, why is having the state enforce the ideal order of society a right-wing idea?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, I assume there is no argument that having people keep their faith in the state is a left-wing idea, so the question remains, why is having the state enforce the ideal order of society a right-wing idea?

In context of the above three issues given, they are traditionally those held by the right or the "moral majority" and they happen to appeal to the majority, center-right collective in this country. With regard to the more general statement, "enforce the ideal order of society", the only difference between the left and the right is what is considered "the ideal order".

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In context of the above three issues given, they are traditionally those held by the right or the "moral majority" and they happen to appeal to the majority, center-right collective in this country.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems the rationale you are giving here is these positions have a right-wing basis because those who self-identify as right-wingers (and/or center-right) subscribe to them.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

With regard to the more general statement, "enforce the ideal order of society", the only difference between the left and the right is what is considered "the ideal order".

Well, I specifically said have the state enforce the ideal order of society. So, in this context (with marijuana for example), I'm having trouble understanding why you would see the absence of a law as an example of the state enforcing the ideal order of society.

Likewise, the more people a statement applies to, the less useable information it will contain. If you apply the "enforcing the ideal order of society" label to those who support prohibition, and those who don't, it seems to me you've relegated the phrase to meaninglessness.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by subego

Well, I assume there is no argument that having people keep their faith in the state is a left-wing idea

I’ll give you an argument.

The left is not about people having faith in the State. The left doesn’t care about the State in that way. In a leftist view, the State has certain obligations to fulfil in exchange for stealing the citizen’s taxes, something commonly called the ‘social contract’, and the leftist activists’ job is to pester the State about keeping up its end of the deal. The State typically responds by raising taxes in conjunction with maintaining or lowering the present quality of top-to-bottom services, which further aggravates the left, at least those who haven’t been bought off with cushy public sector jobs or other bribes.

The right represents the views of industrialists and other people and organisations at the top of the pyramid, which makes them push for policies that give them increased control over the State’s policies, effecting more tax breaks for the ultra-rich, less social justice for the poor, outsourcing of labour, et cetera. Because these policies do not benefit the majority of lower and middle class taxpayers, this meets with resistance from aforementioned leftists, who recognise an anti-democratic fascist corporatocracy when they see one.

, so the question remains, why is having the state enforce the ideal order of society a right-wing idea?

In the democratic leftist view, the State is only a somewhat necessary evil. The vast majority of any nation’s citizens are poor, so they expect the State to improve their quality of life. That in fact is the only thing the State should be doing, that’s what all the taxes upon the plebeians should be going towards: the betterment of the plebeians. The patricians on the other hand view the plebeians as a threat and as slave labour, therefore they endorse anti-democratic law-and-order legislation and executive brutality as a means to keep the plebs down.

Democracy means mob-rule, after all. The right doesn’t like the mob, and the mob doesn’t like the right.

[subego]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

The right represents the views of industrialists and other people and organisations at the top of the pyramid...

If you will allow me to put what you are saying in a nutshell (and this includes an implicit request to be corrected if wrong):

Where one falls on the political spectrum is based on prosperity.


At first blush, I have some issues with the proposition, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't think it was worthy of investigation.

[Chongo]

As I was watching the O'Reilly-Obama interview I took notice of one of Obama's statements. They were talking about him wanting to raise the top rate from 35% back to 39.6%. He told O'Reilly "they can afford it" That sounds like "from those according to their ability" to me.

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

As I was watching the O'Reilly-Obama interview I took notice of one of Obama's statements. They were talking about him wanting to raise the top rate from 35% back to 39.6%. He told O'Reilly "they can afford it" That sounds like "from those according to their ability" to me.

I'm confused - are you proposing a tax structure that has no relation to someone's ability to pay?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

I'm confused - are you proposing a tax structure that has no relation to someone's ability to pay?

Obama said he is going to raise the top bracket from 35% back to 39.6% because "they can afford it."

As to what I would prefer: www.fairtax.org

[Dual Porpoise]

Perhaps I misunderstood - it sounded from your comment (That sounds like "from those according to their ability" to me) that you thought the idea of taxing people in a way that related to their ability to pay was a bad thing.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Obama said he is going to raise the top bracket from 35% back to 39.6% because "they can afford it."

As to what I would prefer: www.fairtax.org

While the idea of equitable taxation is obviously appealing, I think fully embracing it requires one to subscribe to the myth that capitalism itself is somehow "fair." It most certainly is not. Even if we set aside the historical inequalities that leave millions upon millions born into poverty with only the slimmest of opportunities to escape it and even if we pretended with all our might that laissez faire economics in an age of global capitalism presenting insurmountalbe barriers of entry could ever be "fair," we would still be left with the simple fact that market dynamics themselves are not equitable or fair. The reeling markets right now will impact thousands who did nothing wrong, made sound financial decisions, even worked hard.

We are not a nation of agrarians and frontiersmen any longer. The invisible hand is not enough for an economy of this scale. Regulating markets and protecting the balance of wealth through progressive taxation are reasonable accomodations to preserve a generally prosperous society. This week proves the point.

Edit: I'm reading more. I see the exemption for anyone below the poverty line. They'd get refunds, is that right? This is an interesting idea, but with tax preparation an industry worth billions of dollars, do you think it could ever pass?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

Perhaps I misunderstood - it sounded from your comment (That sounds like "from those according to their ability" to me) that you thought the idea of taxing people in a way that related to their ability to pay was a bad thing.

He does.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

As I was watching the O'Reilly-Obama interview I took notice of one of Obama's statements. They were talking about him wanting to raise the top rate from 35% back to 39.6%.

40%?
Plus state tax.
Plus FICA for the self-employed?

Is he trying to make France look like a tax haven?

Meanwhile, Russia continues to make all look silly with a 13% flat rate.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

Perhaps I misunderstood - it sounded from your comment (That sounds like "from those according to their ability" to me) that you thought the idea of taxing people in a way that related to their ability to pay was a bad thing.

It is, especially when it fulfills plank 2 of Marx's manifesto.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

It is designed to punish success and inhibit upward mobility.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Meanwhile, Russia continues to make all look silly with a 13% flat rate.

And yet no one is tripping over themselves to move there.

[Dual Porpoise]

Then I am confused Chongo - you think that a tax system should not be related to someone's ability to pay, and the reason for this is because of your presumed dislike of Marx? Marx is far from the only person to have suggested that people should not be levied taxes that are not related to their ability to pay them.
As for your comments on the motivations of progressive taxes, who thinks that? Where do you get the idea that those are the motivations of people proposing progressive taxes?

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

And yet no one is tripping over themselves to move there.

I agree that the Russia hardly seems like a good advert for flat taxes. Out of interest, are there any reasonably large countries in the world where flat taxes do exist and create environments people want to live in, or are we wandering into entirely uncharted territory?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Obama said he is going to raise the top bracket from 35% back to 39.6% because "they can afford it."

As to what I would prefer: www.fairtax.org

It replaces all taxes with a fixed, 23% retail sales tax. That would mean all sources of unearned income would be largely untaxed. It's a rich person's wet dream. The poor and middle class get taxed 23% while the rich (who don't depend on earned income) won't get taxed at all.

[Chongo]

As I have stated before, adoption of the Fair Tax would eliminate this dance that happens every four years and put the power back in the hands of those who earn a paycheck, and back to the way this country was funded for nearly 150 years.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It replaces all taxes with a fixed, 23% retail sales tax. That would mean all sources of unearned income would be largely untaxed. It's a rich person's wet dream. The poor and middle class get taxed 23% while the rich (who don't depend on earned income) won't get taxed at all.

from the Fair tax website

"The FairTax is regressive and shifts the tax burden onto lower and middle income people"

The truth: The FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line. This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax. Today, low and moderate income Americans pay far more in FICA taxes than income taxes. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a FairTax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today. Meanwhile, the wealthy pay the 23 percent retail sales tax on their retail purchases.

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

As I have stated before, adoption of the Fair Tax would eliminate this dance that happens every four years and put the power back in the hands of those who earn a paycheck, and back to the way this country was funded for nearly 150 years.

Which dance are we talking about? It seems fairly clear that the 'fair tax' favors the rich, and that the burden of paying for the cost of government falls proportionally more on those who 'earn a paycheck'. I don't think there is any real way to argue that the Fair Tax doesn't favor the rich. Whether or not that is 'the way this country was funded for nearly 150 years', and whether that is a good thing are, I suppose, matters of opinion.