[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It is bullshit, but it is not unique bullshit. Politics is full of this sort of marketing. So full if it, in fact, that I sincerely believe that many people both ideologically invested and not can't even tell the difference between the marketing/rhetoric and the actual reasonable truth.

Actually, it is unique. The right characterizes the left as fools. The left characterizes the right as villains.

You have to get pretty fringe on the right before they start claiming the left are villainous. The idea the right are villains is mainstream leftist thought.


Edit: extra irony points for this thought process coming from the supposed tolerant party.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Besson, we've all given you a plethora of evidence to support our claims. Do you refute that costs will be higher?

I think I've made my case pretty clear, but again, I refute that anybody knows, because all we have right now are projections. This is a fact, not a belief.

Do you refute that people are losing coverage?

We don't know. The ACA hasn't gone into effect yet, and we don't know whether these people will be offered sufficiently comparable plans. Things can change between now and March.

Do you refute that Obama and his friends are exempt?

I still haven't really researched this, honestly.

Do you refute that we were told we could keep our coverage or that we would see lower costs? Egadz man, it's all staring you in the face and you're going on about objectivity?

You are repeating yourself.

Like I said, calm your tits. Wait a little, then I'll be right with you if things don't change, but yes, this transition has not gone well, I've acknowledged that quite clearly.

Have you provided a single piece of evidence to objectively support your position that this will ultimately be better for the US in the long run?

My evidence is based on theory, as is anybody's. Prior to the launch of social security did anybody know for absolute fact what it would do? Same for Medicare...

It's scary that we can't measure the successes or failures of programs this large without putting them into effect, and all we have to go by is our theories, but that's the nature of the beast. The same goes with changing tax rates, or doing any number of other things with our economy - it's theory. It's even theory in the private sector: should company x buy back some stock? Provide dividends?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Actually, it is unique. The right characterizes the left as fools. The left characterizes the right as villains.

You have to get pretty fringe on the right before they start claiming the left are villainous. The idea the right are villains is mainstream leftist thought.


Edit: extra irony points for this thought process coming from the supposed tolerant party.

Oh, this is unique, I'm just saying that the fundamental existence of these sorts of caricatures is not: the rich 1% (ruthless), those on welfare (slackers), vegetarians (leftist), vehement Christian beliefs (conservative), etc. etc. The same is true for marketing of policies, and we've even come up with lazy shorthand that is supposed to illicit a particular emotional response (e.g. "working Moms", "pro life", etc.). This stuff is *everywhere*, it's so deeply embedded that it is hard to recognize it for what it is.

[subego]

I'd agree, but say this specific example is very widely spread, and a crapload more corrosive than many (if not all) of the others.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think I've made my case pretty clear, but again, I refute that anybody knows, because all we have right now are projections. This is a fact, not a belief.

Well what else are you basing your position on? The projections come from people who are very good at what they do. "Wait and see if the country collapses" is not an acceptable argument. Show me something that supports that this law will have its intended effect. Otherwise you don't have an argument, just words that sound nice.

We don't know. The ACA hasn't gone into effect yet, and we don't know whether these people will be offered sufficiently comparable plans. Things can change between now and March.

But you don't argue that millions have and will lose coverage?

I still haven't really researched this, honestly.

Then why in the world are you arguing as if you know what you're talking about? If you won't take the time to do a four second google search, you're being intellectually dishonest.

You are repeating yourself.

You are forcing me to by ignoring my arguments.

Like I said, calm your tits. Wait a little, then I'll be right with you if things don't change, but yes, this transition has not gone well, I've acknowledged that quite clearly.

No besson, I'm not going to wait a little. The time to fix this before it gets out of hand is now. Real people are going to suffer in a real way and you want to "wait a little?"

How many millions have to be dicked over for you to consider that this thing is not doing what it's supposed to?

My evidence is based on theory

So you have not provided any evidence, and only have suppositions and assumptions?

Theory /= evidence. You use evidence to prove or disprove a theory.

, as is anybody's. Prior to the launch of social security did anybody know for absolute fact what it would do? Same for Medicare...

Yes. They had a pretty good idea of what they looked like before implementing them.

It's scary that we can't measure the successes for failures of programs this large without putting them into effect,

But we can besson. We can listen to the people that know what they're talking about instead of politicians that have repeatedly been wrong time and again.

and all we have to go by is our theories,

I'm sorry, but this is the dumbest thing I've heard today. I don't mean to be offensive, but all one has to go by is evidence. Theories are just words on paper until they're backed up by statistics, data extrapolations, and other observable metrics. The whole point of a theory is to suppose a model for how things could work, then test the data against it. You want to do that with 330 million people's lives, and frankly that is disturbing.

but that's the nature of the beast.

that asinine mentality will be the death of us all.

The same goes with changing tax rates, or doing any number of other things with our economy - it's theory. It's even theory in the private sector: should company x buy back some stock? Provide dividends?

It's theory backed up by empirical evidence, past experience, and statistical analysis. Where's the evidence, experience, and analysis for your beloved ACA?

What I'm hearing you say is that we shouldn't fix the problems in our country until they come to full fruition and millions suffer real, irreversible consequences.

What makes you think the ACA was a good idea in the first place? Because it was a good theory? Okay, well now that the evidence is mounting against it being a good theory, why aren't you adjusting your thought process? Or are you just taking Obama at his word about this. That's okay if that's the case, but be honest and you'll hear nothing more about it from me.

[besson3c]

Which is where a strong third party could help, as it would not be in any party's interest to make another a perpetual villain, only an occasional/frequent one.

[besson3c]

Snow-i, there is nothing that I can say that you'll be satisfied if you really think evidence can be found of a program that doesn't exist yet, implementing something that has never been done before, anywhere? Would you be satisfied with implementing a copy of Canada's system, since it has done well there? Of course not, you'd say that it is invalid because it is Canadian and not American. Therefore, there isn't a program that can be implemented that would have evidence for it working beyond educated projections.

If projections are the best we can do, there are CBO projections that show the ACA being fiscally solvent, and basic intuition that says that if you provide subsidies and increase the pool, costs can go down to the demographic the subsidies are targeted at.

This is the best anybody can do in projections, evidence of success or failure cannot exist until we have actual data. If you disagree with this or my framing of this, I don't think there is anything else I can say to persuade you otherwise. I don't mean this in a passive aggressive way - the same would be true for anybody else.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Which is where a strong third party could help, as it would not be in any party's interest to make another a perpetual villain, only an occasional/frequent one.

That's your solution? A third party? Do you have any interest in the welfare of the 330 million people in America or are you just out to enjoy the smell of your own farts?

How about we take what we now know about the ACA and think about this logically.

The three major things this was supposed to accomplish have failed. If you wanna argue against the Society of Actuaries go ahead, but you'll need to find fault with their methodology which has been proven time and again. It's called statistics, and we actually teach that in our schools.


Again, can you address these points?

Originally Posted by snow-i

The devil is in the details. Details such as 28% higher costs for the same coverage, an increase in required coverage, millions losing their existing coverage, an administration that is more worried about the next election than the welfare of it's constituency.

The ACA has not only failed in its three primary goals, it has exacerbated the very problems it was supposed to fix.

Problem:Costs are too high.
Promise: ACA will reduce costs for care and services
ACA Reality:Raise costs across the board by 28%

Problem:Millions are uninsured.
Promise: If you like your plan, you can keep it!
ACA Reality: Inadvertently (and indifferently) cause millions of people to lose their existing plans.

Problem:Insurance is inaccessible to those without it now.
Promise: All else the same, Poor people can sign up through a website.
ACA Reality: Dump half a billion of taxpayer money into a website that doesn't work, see realities one and two.

Problem:For this to work, everyone has to participate.
Promise: Everyone will be, under penalty of law, required to sign up for this.
ACA Reality: Obama's friends, Congress, and Big biz get a pass. Businesses that aren't exempted cut the number of fulltime employees they have to reduce the costs (which have now gone up another 28%). Profits and productivity plummet which will have a measurable effect on jobs in the US. Starting and maintaining a business because more expensive and more difficult which results in less surviving and providing employment. The 40 hour work week is destroyed as it is simply not a smart business decision to keep it. The middle and working class suffer immensely as an already dismal employment situation becomes worse because businesses cannot afford to hire as many full time employees (since the costs have gone up). Someone has to pay, besson. Do you really think the rich and connected are going to be the ones to do so?

If you can't or aren't interested in doing so, that's fine. Just say so. But don't refute my position and accuse me of bias without actually addressing any of the sources I've offered to support that position.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

That's your solution? A third party? Do you have any interest in the welfare of the 330 million people in America or are you just out to enjoy the smell of your own farts?

How about we take what we now know about the ACA and think about this logically.

Subego and I weren't talking about the ACA.

I think you need a breather.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Again, can you address these points?

If you can't or aren't interested in doing so, that's fine. Just say so. But don't refute my position and accuse me of bias without actually addressing any of the sources I've offered to support that position.

I have, several times.

They are projections. We don't have data for the ACA because the meaty part of it hasn't been launched yet. There are other projections too that paint the ACA's national/fiscal affordability in a more positive light too, but they are also just projections.

If this is insufficient for you, then I don't think you'll find what you are looking for.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I have, several times.

They are projections. We don't have data for the ACA because the meaty part of it hasn't been launched yet. There are other projections too that paint the ACA's national/fiscal affordability in a more positive light too, but they are also just projections.

If this is insufficient for you, then I don't think you'll find what you are looking for.

Certainly not from you.

"They are projections" is not only factually incorrect but also not an argument on its own. If you have data that supports your position, offer it up as a refutation and we'll discuss it. If you see flaws with the projections or my conclusions, offer em up. You haven't done that yet, and I'm convinced it's because you're unable to.

Look, I can see you're looking for a way out without having to address any of my points. I'll go ahead and give you one. All you have to do is say that you take Obama at his word. Just admit your position, and our future conversations will be a lot easier. If you don't agree with that statement, show me the data and facts you are basing your position on. If all you have is theory without any empirical evidence to back it up, I think we're done here.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Besson, we've all given you a plethora of evidence to support our claims. Do you refute that costs will be higher?

Do you refute that people are losing coverage?

Do you refute that Obama and his friends are exempt?

Do you refute that we were told we could keep our coverage or that we would see lower costs? Egadz man, it's all staring you in the face and you're going on about objectivity?


Have you provided a single piece of evidence to objectively support your position that this will ultimately be better for the US in the long run?

It's the self-righteous "we know what's best for you" bullshit, like what Obama oozes from his pores. Whenever I hear him talk in that fatherly, ministerial voice I become a mushroom-cloud-layin' mother****er. Every time I see that smug look, I'm Superfly TNT, I'm the Guns of the Navarone!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Look, I can see you're looking for a way out without having to address any of my points. I'll go ahead and give you one. All you have to do is say that you take Obama at his word. Just admit your position, and our future conversations will be a lot easier. If you don't agree with that statement, show me the data and facts you are basing your position on. If all you have is theory without any empirical evidence to back it up, I think we're done here.

Data, like projections? I mentioned the CBO projections a number of times. That is the best I can do, because the program hasn't really started yet. You cannot have data that doesn't exist yet, they are called projections.

[besson3c]

Snow-i: can you please show me the jobs report for the first quarter of 2014? Oh, and while you're at it, the 2014 election results would be handy to have too...

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

In a general sense, I disagree with your caring about the poor statement.

Both sides care about the poor, they just have different theories on the best way to approach it.

Framing it as one side cares more is hugely self-serving.

The thing is, I'm pretty sure there isn't some mass conspiracy to distort the issue. The left actually believes they care more.

It points to one of the biggest underlying problems with the left. They think they're right, and show little interest in trying to understand where the right is actually coming from. Much easier just to leave them as the boogeyman.

The right thinks they're right too, the difference is they have a much better understanding of where the left is coming from. It's a big reason they're better at hardball.

Let's call a spade a spade here. Leftist policy is intuitive. You don't need to be an economist to understand where the policy is coming from. You do for right leaning policies. In other words, unlike the leftist policy, it takes effort to understand the underlying principles. You don't need college level courses to understand "be swell to one another".

I'll let whether you should have fiscal policy written by people who have put effort into it as an exercise for the reader.

"Be swell to each each other" Did you mean " Be excellent to each other"? queue the "Bill and Ted" guitar riff. Both are really "Do unto others" rephrased.

The bottom line is the ACA is designed to NOT be successful. Obama, Reid and others have stated it is a step to single payer. Why else enforce coverages designed to force the largest provider of private care, the Catholic Church, to provide services that are antithetical to her teachings? To not do so she will incur onerous fines designed to force them to close their doors. One of the guiding principals of Catholic Social teaching is Subsidiarity, which runs counter to single payer. This is why "Obama's war on the Church" (AKA the Alinsky/Chicago way)


One example, The Little Sisters of the Poor.  

If the poor sisters do not comply, they face hefty fines. Although it varies between locations, some face amounts of $100 per employee, per day. Fines can start after Jan. 1, 2014, even if they extend the time for them to pay them.


Read more: DIAZ: What Obamacare means to Little Sisters of the Poor - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

You can keep your policy?
Kirsten Powers on her policy getting canceled

Kellyfile - YouTube
Lousy plans?
Megyn Kelly | The Kelly File | Fox News

Employer plans will be canceled as well.

Roy: More Than Half of Employer-Based Coverage Will Be Illegal Next Year - YouTube

This includes plans that do not comply with the HHS contraception mandate that Hobby Lobby, Hercules Industries, Ave Maria University, EWTN, and other companies and institutions are suing HHS over.

HHS Mandate Information Central -

BTW, The DC court of appeals struck down the HHS contraceptive mandate, setting up a show down in the SCOTUS.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Whenever I hear him talk in that fatherly, ministerial voice I become a mushroom-cloud-layin' mother****er. Every time I see that smug look, I'm Superfly TNT, I'm the Guns of the Navarone!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If the Democratic party is moving further to the left, where are Democrats and others calling Obama Bush Jr.? This is incoherent to me... One one hand people say "where is all of this change and hope stuff, nothing has changed", and on the other "Obama is the most liberal president ever". It can't be both.

Of course it can be both. No one said this man was entirely above the political fray. The President has attempted to change what he can while maintaining office and political capital. He's not being called a Bush Jr. for the same reason you and others are compelled to make excuses for the failures of the ACA; protecting ideology in action and ilk. The folks ridiculing "hope and change" are castigating Obama's naiveté and those duped by it by reminding you that no President is above the political fray. I'm sure I'd have an easier time asking $5 from you than I would $500, this doesn't mean I don't really want $500.

If the Republican party has not moved further to the right, why are so many representatives garnering significant national attention with platforms pretty far to the right? Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum aren't that dumb, they wouldn't have run for president if they didn't think they could gain traction. Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin aren't that dumb either.

What do you consider "pretty far to the right"? Rick Santorum may believe life begins at conception, but he's not going to step in and somehow repeal Roe V Wade. Not if he hopes to maintain office in which case he's not much of a threat. The Primaries gave their voice an opportunity and moved them down the line. The problem with your examples above is that they've otherwise been extremely effective in their lives of civil service and corporate leadership which are both inherently political animals. Not unlike the Tea Party. No one is capable of garnering 100% political support, but the problem with the Tea Party is that they've been effective enough to disrupt primaries. I've already cited the 10 points of the Tea Party platform and they've been stumped by just about every politician in US history across both sides of the aisle. You can find them in the speeches of JFK, Clinton, and Obama; smaller government, Constitutional integrity, lower taxes, balanced budgets, tightened borders, elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse...

Can you tell me which platform policy of the Tea Party can be viewed as "far-right" or is this little more than a fashionable caricature that has been spoon fed to FUD ignorant people away from classic American conservatism? The Tea Party is viewed as extreme because they're united as a bloc and this is creating challenges for primaries and checks and balances in government. Period.

McCain and Romney aren't dumb either, why did they pander to the far right part of their base if they weren't a significant part of it?

Politicians will always lean toward their bases during primaries and slip back toward the center for the Generals. This is how you get mixed messages such as Obama's on gay marriage. McCain and Romney are no different in this. Where we might differ is in our definition of pandering or far-right.

The way I see it, the American *people* may not be moving further to the right, but the party is having self-identity issues right now, a part of it is at war with itself. The war is between the Tea Party and the rest of the party. If you think "war" is too strong of a word, fine, I don't really know what word to use, but the shutdown was not a sign of a healthy party where its members are largely on the same page, agreed?

Parties go through these identity crises after losses. I maintain the Democrats' time is coming. There's no reason to make more of it than it is. They'll unite when it's necessary.

It gets attention, but really bad, corrosive attention, at least from people with memories that can remember all the way back to 9/11. Sarah Palin got a lot of attention too, was it good attention? The shutdown, good attention?

Again, hindsight is 20/20. Palin had a lot of good attention, until she had a lot of bad attention. Attention brought to the records of support or opposition to the ACA will obviously serve in various ways in 2014. It depends on how the opportunities are seized and who is seizing them.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course it can be both. No one said this man was entirely above the political fray. The President has attempted to change what he can while maintaining office and political capital. He's not being called a Bush Jr. for the same reason you and others are compelled to make excuses for the failures of the ACA; protecting ideology in action and ilk. The folks ridiculing "hope and change" are castigating Obama's naiveté and those duped by it by reminding you that no President is above the political fray. I'm sure I'd have an easier time asking $5 from you than I would $500, this doesn't mean I don't really want $500.


What do you consider "pretty far to the right"? Rick Santorum may believe life begins at conception, but he's not going to step in and somehow repeal Roe V Wade. Not if he hopes to maintain office in which case he's not much of a threat. The Primaries gave their voice an opportunity and moved them down the line. The problem with your examples above is that they've otherwise been extremely effective in their lives of civil service and corporate leadership which are both inherently political animals. Not unlike the Tea Party. No one is capable of garnering 100% political support, but the problem with the Tea Party is that they've been effective enough to disrupt primaries. I've already cited the 10 points of the Tea Party platform and they've been stumped by just about every politician in US history across both sides of the aisle. You can find them in the speeches of JFK, Clinton, and Obama; smaller government, Constitutional integrity, lower taxes, balanced budgets, tightened borders, elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse...

Can you tell me which platform policy of the Tea Party can be viewed as "far-right" or is this little more than a fashionable caricature that has been spoon fed to FUD ignorant people away from classic American conservatism? The Tea Party is viewed as extreme because they're united as a bloc and this is creating challenges for primaries and checks and balances in government. Period.


Politicians will always lean toward their bases during primaries and slip back toward the center for the Generals. This is how you get mixed messages such as Obama's on gay marriage. McCain and Romney are no different in this. Where we might differ is in our definition of pandering or far-right.


Parties go through these identity crises after losses. I maintain the Democrats' time is coming. There's no reason to make more of it than it is. They'll unite when it's necessary.


Again, hindsight is 20/20. Palin had a lot of good attention, until she had a lot of bad attention. Attention brought to the records of support or opposition to the ACA will obviously serve in various ways in 2014. It depends on how the opportunities are seized and who is seizing them.

I need some calibration then. Who do you consider far to the right?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I need some calibration then. Who do you consider far to the right?

On a spectrum that includes a self-proclaimed socialist? Really, no one in American politics. Labeling this person or that as far-right has been little more than leftist FUD IMO. For example, I can't think of any open fascists among those you'd typically consider "right-wing". If one were to cite social conservatism for its support of traditional values, what might those be that exist on the fringe in American culture?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

On a spectrum that includes a self-proclaimed socialist? Really, no one in American politics. Labeling this person or that as far-right has been little more than leftist FUD IMO. For example, I can't think of any open fascists among those you'd typically consider "right-wing". If one were to cite social conservatism for its support of traditional values, what might those be that exist on the fringe in American culture?

But you no doubt see people who are far-left.

It's no wonder we never agree on anything, your calibration is messed up You need to listen more to my perspectives, since I'm willing to bet that my calibration is a little more normal than you think. I'll help you win the next election with my strategic advice.

[besson3c]

Here is besson3c's strategy lesson for Republicans #1:

Show the public that you aren't just the party of no, and you are willing to compromise on something not terribly important to the party. If small government and fiscal goodness is your mantra, soften up on an issue like gay marriage. You need young voters, the older voters are dying off, and young voters seem keen on gay marriage. You've been losing elections lately, so if the large governmentness and economic status of this country is as dramatically dire as you claim, you should be okay with giving up a little slack on an issue like gay marriage which is comparatively small potatoes anyway.

I'm not saying that this will be a magic bullet, but it will be a start. Can you do this?

[subego]

Small government = no government involvement in marriage. Gay or straight.

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

On a spectrum that includes a self-proclaimed socialist? Really, no one in American politics. Labeling this person or that as far-right has been little more than leftist FUD IMO. For example, I can't think of any open fascists among those you'd typically consider "right-wing". If one were to cite social conservatism for its support of traditional values, what might those be that exist on the fringe in American culture?

1. One of Doofy's enduring gifts to me was his analysis that fascism is not "right-wing". Although his assertion was that it was actually left-wing, I do reject that characterization and conclude that it combines strong elements of both: a very top-down government-controlled capitalist economy with equally strong traditional/conservative social and nationalist values. Anyway, just a FYI to think about.

2. Like besson (whom I have a spotty track record of agreeing with, natch), I find it pretty amusing that you would not characterize anyone in American politics as "far right". I would also echo his comment that your calibration-o-meter needs a reset.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

But you no doubt see people who are far-left.

It's no wonder we never agree on anything, your calibration is messed up

And yet you couldn't provide me an example of a traditional value held by these alleged folks on the far-right that would be considered fringe in American culture. I'd say a self-proclaimed socialist currently serving the great state of Vermont is far-left. Do you have the equivalent of this on the right?

You need to listen more to my perspectives, since I'm willing to bet that my calibration is a little more normal than you think. I'll help you win the next election with my strategic advice.

See, I don't think the problem is my calibration, I think your problem is a profound lack of knowledge of American culture.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Here is besson3c's strategy lesson for Republicans #1:

Show the public that you aren't just the party of no, and you are willing to compromise on something not terribly important to the party. If small government and fiscal goodness is your mantra, soften up on an issue like gay marriage. You need young voters, the older voters are dying off, and young voters seem keen on gay marriage.

You've been losing elections lately, so if the large governmentness and economic status of this country is as dramatically dire as you claim, you should be okay with giving up a little slack on an issue like gay marriage which is comparatively small potatoes anyway.

The problem with your analysis is that gay marriage isn't that popular among young people either. They're more supporting of it sure, but it's not a primary issue among them. Voters see things in terms of fashionable-advocacy, WIIFM, and NIMBY. Obama was an overwhelming favorite among young voters and yet he opposed gay marriage. You have to be a gifted orator when it comes to more complicated social issues or points of contention. Folks can disagree, they just can't be disagreeable.

You're seeing only national elections without regard for gubernatorial contests and the local houses upon which Republicans have done very well leading to the complaints of gerrymandering districts.

I'm not saying that this will be a magic bullet, but it will be a start. Can you do this?

I don't think your analysis is correct and I'm not sure a platform of openness to gay marriage is the move they're looking for. It wouldn't bother me, but then it's not an upper-rail issue for me either way and I maintain most others. In short, you need to advocate for policy, not against people. And you have to be a gifted orator to do so effectively.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

1. One of Doofy's enduring gifts to me was his analysis that fascism is not "right-wing". Although his assertion was that it was actually left-wing, I do reject that characterization and conclude that it combines strong elements of both: a very top-down government-controlled capitalist economy with equally strong traditional/conservative social and nationalist values. Anyway, just a FYI to think about.

Doofy and I had our share of disagreements as well. Who are the above American politicians who meet this criteria? Again, besson3c asked me who I considered far-right. To make this determination, we need to know where the spectrum begins. I gave him the self-proclaimed socialist Congressman from Vermont as a gauge for far-left. Do you have an equivalent on the right? I'll explain...

2. Like besson (whom I have a spotty track record of agreeing with, natch), I find it pretty amusing that you would not characterize anyone in American politics as "far right". I would also echo his comment that your calibration-o-meter needs a reset.

And I would say to you what I said to him -- that you may be ignorant of American culture and likely as ignorant with regard to American politics. Conservatism, that which is deemed right-wing in the US; is the desire to preserve the most liberal ideal of governance in history upon its founding. A strong, anti-federalist component of a constitutionally-limited government including in it freedoms of speech, arms, and religion. While it allowed for components of traditional values such as Biblical instruction in the public school system or the opening of Congressional session in prayer, it did not equate to fascism any more than a police force or single, publicly-owned utility or school system represents socialism. If you have a self-proclaimed socialist serving in US government right now, today; what is your equivalent on the right?

I'm being told my calibration is off by two people who apparently haven't conceived a metric yet. This is why I maintain that the complaint has been little more than a fashionable caricature that has been spoon fed to FUD ignorant people away from classic American conservatism.

[subego]

The people in US politics who position themselves "far right" always come off as commie bastards to me.

I'd say the people who are actually far-right are the libertarians, but they're not keen on positioning themselves there.

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Doofy and I had our share of disagreements as well. Who are the above American politicians who meet this criteria?

You seem confused. What I am saying is that an American politician should not be considered right-wing just because they are fascist. Fascism is simply not "right-wing". It was just a quibble with your definition, that's all.

And I would say to you what I said to him -- that you may be ignorant of American culture and likely as ignorant with regard to American politics.

Conservatism, that which is deemed right-wing in the US; is the desire to preserve the most liberal ideal of governance in history upon its founding. A strong, anti-federalist component of a constitutionally-limited government including in it freedoms of speech, arms, and religion. While it allowed for components of traditional values such as Biblical instruction in the public school system or the opening of Congressional session in prayer, it did not equate to fascism any more than a police force or single, publicly-owned utility or school system represents socialism. If you have a self-proclaimed socialist serving in US government right now, today; what is your equivalent on the right?

...but this is the source of disagreement here, is it not? You are using a very specific set of criteria that is in and of itself very difficult to apply to today's world.

My (very simple) definition of classic American conservatism is Goldwater-eque: fiscal conservatism, social libertarianism.

I'm being told my calibration is off by two people who apparently haven't conceived a metric yet. This is why I maintain that the complaint has been little more than a fashionable caricature that has been spoon fed to FUD ignorant people away from classic American conservatism.

I'd say the people who are actually far-right are the libertarians, but they're not keen on positioning themselves there.

I was going to give three examples of politicians that I would suggest could be considered far-right in most of the developed world: both Pauls, as well as Michelle Bachmann to a lesser extent.

I suspect ebuddy might entirely disagree (especially on Bachmann, but we will see). But that is a simple illustration of how right-centric American politics is compared to the rest of the developed world.

[subego]

Bachmann is a perfect example of a commie bastard.

[The Final Shortcut]

You may need to clarify "commie bastard" on the political spectrum for me

I don't know that she really has a consistent fiscal policy (or history for that matter), but I was primarily referring to her consistent traditional conservative Christian stances on most social/science matters.

[subego]

I'm defining it as a propensity to want the government up in your shit.

[The Final Shortcut]

...economically?

[The Final Shortcut]

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, if one is fiscally conservative and socially "traditional/religious commie" (using your definition to maximum absurdist effect )...then where do they fall?

[subego]

Somewhere between "commie" and "bastard".

You're still a goat****er, even if you only ****ed the goat once.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

I was going to give three examples of politicians that I would suggest could be considered far-right in most of the developed world: both Pauls, as well as Michelle Bachmann to a lesser extent.

I suspect ebuddy might entirely disagree (especially on Bachmann, but we will see). But that is a simple illustration of how right-centric American politics is compared to the rest of the developed world.

I think these classifications cause debate because we can't agree upon what things should be relative to. In my opinion, these classifications are relative to society at the time.

I've yet to see a political compass thing that, in addition to economic issues, did not include an axis for social issues. I'm sure there was a time when co-habitation/sex before marriage was considered an abomination, yet if a politician were to campaign against this they would be laughed at because this is out-of-place today.

I think most/all right-wingers state that they are for small/limited government, there are plenty that are pro-military, and there are plenty that are pretty far right on social issues. I would add Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin to your list.

But my point is this, whether you dispute these additions or not, the Bernie guy from Vermont is not a household name - nobody ever hears from him. Palin, the Pauls, Bachmann, and Santorum are very much known entities that can draw attention to themselves when desired. I'm sure most right-wingers here would dispute a claim that they are the identity of the party, I wouldn't go that far in saying that, but they are very much a part of that identity - they are firmly in that mix.

To me, that's a problem that needs to be solved if the Republicans want to win future elections.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

For starters; do you need addiction treatment and care for newborns and children? It's frustrating enough to know that you have to fork up money for things beyond your control, let alone things that you know are. Unfortunately, you'll have to have them as a bare minimum of all plans including bronze. And for the provisions you do not need, you will likely be paying higher premiums, higher deductibles, and higher co-pays. In this sense, going beyond useless.

Are you telling me catastrophic plans have better co-pays and deductibles than bronze plans? Link?

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

They get snagged into the evolution vs creationism debate. Between that, stem cell research, and abortion they end up appearing to declare war on science by proxy.

Don't forget global warming and pollution.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No matter how you slice it, Obamacare is going to be more expensive for me personally. I am in the lowest federal income bracket and there's significant expense to the taxpayer via my subsidy. at least I'll have maternity coverage. Who is this supposed to help exactly if not low income earners like me?

Your argument seems to be that getting broader healthcare coverage isn't helping you. I mean, if that's your POV, I have nothing to offer you.

[The Final Dakar]

Also, seriously guys, unless you can demonstrate that maternity coverage is inflating the cost of these plans by a significant amount, you can discontinue that talking point.

[subego]

@besson,

All political compasses I've ever seen contain a social axis.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

@besson,

All political compasses I've ever seen contain a social axis.

Sorry, I meant to say that I've yet to see a political compass that did *NOT* contain a social axis.

[subego]

Gotcha.

I also wanted to add, I see my own (strong) support for the military as a leftist position, because, well, if you're going to define leftism as "big government", how is the military not included in that?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Gotcha.

I also wanted to add, I see my own (strong) support for the military as a leftist position, because, well, if you're going to define leftism as "big government", how is the military not included in that?

What is your strong support of the military based on?

[subego]

1) Necessity
2) Lack of a viable private option
3) If you throw a truly ridiculous amount of money at the government, that can be made to work despite the pitfalls of letting the government handle things... except for the pitfall of spending ridiculous amounts of money. You still don't get something even remotely resembling efficiency.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

1) Necessity
2) Lack of a viable private option
3) If you throw a truly ridiculous amount of money at the government, that can be made to work despite the pitfalls of letting the government handle things... except for the pitfall of spending ridiculous amounts of money. You still don't get something even remotely resembling efficient.

Do you mean strong support of the military meaning that you strongly believe it should be as large as it is now?

[subego]

I'd probably tweak if I could get my hands inside the guts, but as a general rule, defense spending is an easy sell for me.

What I strongly support in a direct sense is the ability to kick all asses which may be in need of kicking.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'd probably tweak if I could get my hands inside the guts, but as a general rule, military spending is an easy sell for me.

What I strongly support in a direct sense is the ability to kick all asses which may be in need of kicking.

I think the US military has a ridiculous amount of ass kicking ability, if any enough to be overkill.

[subego]

What you call "overkill" I call "insurance".

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

What you call "overkill" I call "insurance".

I'm for insurance too, but you can overdo insurance too.

[subego]

An absolute minimum IMO is 10:1 odds in our favor.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

You seem confused. What I am saying is that an American politician should not be considered right-wing just because they are fascist. Fascism is simply not "right-wing". It was just a quibble with your definition, that's all.

I never said they should be defined by whether or not they're fascist. The conversation began with besson claiming Republicans were moving to the right. I disagree with this and believe the label of far-right is little more than a Democratic Party FUD campaign in American politics. I'm not confused on this, I'm challenging besson on his awareness of American politics. I offered fascism as a potential antonym of socialism, but that's only because socialism exists in American politics. I cannot find self-proclaimed anarchists or fascists or statists or communists or any other ists. If religion defines far-right, what are the particular values? Abortion? Opposition to abortion is mainstream in the US and has been a major point of contention in the politics of every country in which it's legal. I don't think you can call that fringe or far anything. Gay marriage? Obama was opposed to gay marriage a few short years ago, Clinton signed DOMA into Federal law. I don't think this constitutes fringe or far anything in American politics either. Socialism however, is generally deemed a bad word in American politics which might, in fairness more accurately meet any criteria for far or fringe. There are self-proclaimed socialists serving in Congress, but I cannot find its far-right counterpart in American politics. Which of course was the crux of my point.

The answer is the Democratic Party is pushing harder to the left and I've maintained that the discord in Washington should be viewed in light of Newton's third law.

...but this is the source of disagreement here, is it not? You are using a very specific set of criteria that is in and of itself very difficult to apply to today's world.

I'm not trying to apply anything. This was besson's way around addressing anything I've said.

My (very simple) definition of classic American conservatism is Goldwater-eque: fiscal conservatism, social libertarianism.

Not bad at all, but it's no single-man. Social conservatism is not far-right as it has always had a strong component of protecting religious and traditional values and liberties. It's being defined as fringe, extreme, and far as a part of a broader FUD campaign.

I was going to give three examples of politicians that I would suggest could be considered far-right in most of the developed world: both Pauls, as well as Michelle Bachmann to a lesser extent.

Both Pauls differ little from what you earlier deemed classic American conservatism though this should not assume both Pauls are in lock-step with one another. While I offered American politics at the outset, I don't think either of them could be considered fringe or far anything. Again, FUD campaign.

I suspect ebuddy might entirely disagree (especially on Bachmann, but we will see). But that is a simple illustration of how right-centric American politics is compared to the rest of the developed world.

Perspectives. Folks from the numerous countries with greater economic freedoms than we in the US or folks paying Church taxes in Switzerland should conclude that perhaps the US is farther left than they are. FUD has no geographical boundaries.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Are you telling me catastrophic plans have better co-pays and deductibles than bronze plans? Link?

You first. Do you need addiction coverage or coverage for newborns and children? How about coverage for mental illness? Can you tell me how a plan that includes extra provisions you couldn't possibly need will be less expensive or more useful to you?

[Shaddim]

On defense spending I'm of the opinion that less is more. Fewer troops, who are extremely (frighteningly) well trained, and less equipment, that is of far superior quality. Also, shut down 2/3rds of foreign bases, re-open a half dozen more in the USA, and GTFO of everyone's domestic disputes. Draw specific lines, such as, "directly f*** with us and we will end you", otherwise let the UN do its damned job, for once. The days of us being the world peacekeepers are over.