Supakewreu

Ive been justifying my position for as long as I can remember... people like you, unlike some others that have responded intelligently.. just want to argue for arguements sake, all I have seen from you is two wrongs make a right.

Some days, I just have better things to do wit my time... like work.

I'll continue to respond if and when It's justified not because someone thinks their entitled to an answer.

Oh and Karen, FEMA has always been a running joke, no matter the admin. No arguement there

Never ever ever did I justify anything with something else that is wrong.  You are missing the point and do not see this.  If I did not communicate it clearly I apologize.

Never ever did I say Ambassadors are appointed and are wrong, so that justifies Czars.  What I have always been trying to get at is the extent of YOUR belief that ALL appointees that are unelected are inherently bad.  This has nothing to do with my beliefs and you have avoided answering or justifying your original statement.

It seems to me that now your position is that you will only trust unelected officials if you trust the elected ones.  So all government is bad unless you trust them.  Basically it boils down to a subjective "trust" which has no real structure and thus cannot be discussed.

You read what you want to read.  It's not like I was expecting you to have some great epiphany and realize that this country is in for a world more of hurt before there are any glimmers of hope of it getting better.

I hope I am wrong.  But I firmly believe that this threshold has been crossed.

Pretty clever, certainly cuts down on quotes.

LOL.  That tunnel is being built to try to save the toads.

Everyone has beliefs.  Everyone has passion about their beliefs.  This country was founded on personal beliefs that were shared amongst many.

FYI, your "fundamental" difference between conservatives and liberals is WAY OFF the mark.  But I would expect that.  I mean, you spell utopia "Eutopia."  Conservatives want to progress more than anyone, but not at the expense of the basic principals that this country was founded on.

Was that called for?

To be fair, if we go back far enough then germans are still nazis, all americans are genocidal invaders, all australians criminals and the jews and the italians were part of the axis of evil that killed jesus.

So duh, big deal, the USA was founded on genocide and terrorism. It improved a little bit over the years.

Ok, sorry to kind of back track this conversation, as my last post and the response with questions about it were like 4 pages back (and yet still within 24 hours....), but here we go.

"Those are terms that conservatives are calling liberals -- According to the conservative posters here, Obama is guilty of associating with "radicals."  I myself happen to have anarchist leanings (only because I don't get out much, and I am under the mistaken impression that most people are like me -- which my husband assures me is not the way it is)."

- k10w3

1st of all, leftests are like the opposite of fascists. 2nd, there are indeed radicals on the right and left sides. There can be no doubt that, based on what legislation he has put forth and pushed through Congress, that he is a radical, too. Note, that 'radical' does not necissarily mean 'bad,' and I also used it as an adjective to fascitsts in my post, not that republicans would be called that (which is also the case in numerous places. My point was, however, to say that just blatantly calling people and their ideas names because you disagree with them is not necessary.. 3rd, anarchy has got to be the worst way to go, as far as forms of government, in my opinion. In anarchy, there is no "state" to which people can look to security or protestion, and there are no laws to stop anyone from infringing on there's rights (ie. rape, murder, burglery, etc. would all be 'legal').

The rest of the quotes are by Supakewreu:

"I am here as a liberal with an open mind.  Please justify your statement that the current unfinished health care proposal, if enacted, will kill the economy."

1st, take a look at this: http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/03/news/economy/health_care_class_act.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009090310 This is a link to CNN, by the way, a site which most say is a democrat-biased news service. 2nd, how is taking a bunch of people, many who can't pay their own way in the 1st place, forcing everyone in the nation to pay for their health care, and then expecting to save money and get the same quality of care as everyone else had before, supoosed to work?

"Death panels, killing Grandma, etc.  I would say he is justified in calling these tactics misinformation.  Do you really believe in death panels?"

No, I do not believe in dealth panels, and yes, I am sure there is some misinformation out there, as there is with all things. However, claiming that some 30% of the American people changed their views on him and his reform plans because of this is nonsince. In fact, if there is so much of this misinfo around, you would expect it to have permiated my state, Idaho, as it is one of the reddest states in the Union (last democratic president Idaho has voted for was LBJ) . Has this been the case? No. But to disregard anyone's for disagreeing with him by saying they have been swayed only by 'politics and misinformation' is an extremely arrogent thing for anyone to say/do. As a US president, I would have expected more from him (also, whenever he gets asked a question he doesn't want to answer, guess what, he never actually answeres it. I wonder what it would be like in the schools he is speaking at if they took on that same philosophy...). Has he thought it might be 'reason,' and not those others? Secondly, in the bill's legislation, it does cut soem care for the elderly because it will "save money." You know what, not providing medical care in prisons would save money, too. Why don't we just let them all die and be rid of them (sarcasm in case someone can't tell).

"You are misquoting him, or misquoting his plans for the school event.  I believe it was "what can you do to help the President".  Do Republicans have so little respect for the office of the President that they object to this statement?  Would they be crying indoctrination if George W Bush was addressing schoolchildren?  Where was the Republican outrage when George H.W. Bush gave a speech to schoolchildren that contained specifics on his education policy?"

1stly, what else do you think he is doing, speaking to children? Passing out change? (ok, that was a bad joke...) It is not that I disrespect him that much, it is that when you put that quote in context of everyting else he has done and said during his reign as president, "what can you do for the President" does take on a negative connotation, even if you agree with the rest of his policies/ideals. Either way, can you tell me truthfully that that does not sound somewhat like brainwashing/propoganda/influencing without their parents there/indoctrination/etc. (I am not a radical, anti-democrat, I just take any threat to me and my fellow citizens' safety, security, wellbeing, rights, and freedoms seriously. Also, I am also not saying that what the republicans did was 100% right either.) HOWEVER, the way in which he is wanting to speak to minors about 'why they should help him, and that he is the president, and that becase he is the president, we should take everything he says to be the one and only truth, and that he is perfect, and that he can teach us many things because we are to stupid to figure anything out for ourselves and he is smarter than all of us (Machiavelli, anyone?), and everyone should be like him because he volunteers to say that, "I am such a good person"' seems like a big problem to me.

"I will not belittle you.  I understand right wing policies as I am for the most part a fiscal conservative (within reason, there needs to be regulation).  I welcome an open minded discussion, please help me understand why you think the health care reforms will kill the economy."

Thank you, and I hope I was succesful in convaying my points.

@psychoak

I heartily agree with your change/progress statement. Ever since the New Deal, most democrats (and some republicans) in goverment have been progressives, NOT LIBERALS, no matter what they tell you. Sen. Clinton has even admitted this, herself. By definition, progress means to move foreward. Change on the other hand, can be backward, side-to-seide, whatever. The "progressives" though, want everything to progress in such a way as to make America a socialist state and for them to be controlling it. The socialism will be a cover for their power-hungryness bey making everyone "feel good." But is it actually good? No. Does eating a bunch of junk food taste good/ You bet. But is it good for you? Not a chance. (Disclaimer: no, I am not a gonermnetal conspiratist ) BTW, you're Edit made me laugh, too.

Honestly, I would have a much greater respect for President Obama if he treated me with more respect. And to those of you who might think me disloyal because ofthis, I am not loyal solely to the entity of the president, I am loyal to American, all that she stands for (or rather, once stood for), and our government as a whole. The 1st amendment says we may petition goverment about their actions that we disagree with, and doing so is perfectly within my and everyone else's Constitutional rights.

And, as a final note, I greatly apprecaite all of you who have been willing to be civilized about this discussion and have kept a cool head. Well, have a happy Labor Day weekend everybody.

Have you read it all? if you have, then I MAY listen to you...

So, say you're in school. You're taking an advanced math class (say, calculus). The book that goes with the class has the most convoluted writing in it you've ever seen in your life (and there is no answer key and no outside help is aloud) and there is a descrepencey between me and you on a certain part of the math involved in a series of the problems (neither of us knew the exactly the right way to do the problems, but both of us really wanted to learn what it was).  If I were to say to you, "Has anyone here or in the Senate or the House READ the entire 1000+ pages of our calculus book in it's entirety? ANYONE! C'mon, someone has to have read the DAMN thing. If you have, please speak up. Then I may listen." and then stormed ayway, you'd probably think I was the biggest jerk in the world.

I'm just sayin.....

Btw, I'd like to add this to my evidence for thie health care reform package, among other things, killing our economy:

Google the words: The National Debt Road Trip and watch the video of it.

I did not storm away. All I asked was Has any one read it? If anyone has and wishes to explain it ALL to me, OK, I'll listen. Just find me someone who has read it all.

I was talking about health, not math.

This thread brings my piss to a boil.

First off I live in America.

Secondly I guess you could say Im left wing, but I prefer looking at politics in a 2 dimensional fashion rather than the american single dimension. Im on the top of the political diamond, a pure combination of liberalism and socialism.

Social Libertarianism! Or Anarchism though that word is scary sometimes, and wouldnt be possible in the near future (Utopian) so a Eco-centric libertarian government would be best for now I think.

My view is that right now the American government is split between two large parties who really represent one ideal. Sure the democrans and rebublicrats disagree on plenty of social issues, but they both tend to agree that big government is good government. Country is in danger? Lets violate people's privacy with the patriot act! Economy is in trouble? Lets throw taxpayer money around! Healthcare system is failing? Lets make a new one run by the government! Lets not forget that alot of the economic trouble we find ourselves in was caused by government meddling in the past, fanny may freddy mac ect fucked up banking and loans all across America. Though dont worry left wingers out there the only thing as bad as government fucking things up is uncontrolled corporations fucking things up!

So really Bush and Obama aren't very far apart. Neither are any of the assholes sitting in congress or the house of representetives. They'll argue all day but will band together to maintain the status quo, namely there are TWO FEDERALIST PARTIES and anyone else who wants a shot at political power needs to suck their dicks to get it.

Socialized Healthcare is not Socialist. Its Fascist, or Communist (scary words huh?) or more accurately its STATIST. Power to the state. Maybe this means that SOMEHOW the government will run something with a degree of efficiency for once (doubtful) and socialized healthcare will be more efficient. My real gripe is that means we have to look to the STATE to get treatment, putting another huge pile of bargaining chips in the hands of the state. Can you imagine an America where disagreeing with the state means no healthcare for you? I can.

I have little respect for any of the talking heads on TV but I actually have more for Glenn Beck than any of the others, though not by much. Hes a bit of a nut but he points out some things I agree with, on occasion...

Oh and Obama is a joke. He created a cult like following and promised vague but fanciful things to appeal to small minds and got elected. Then he didnt change much at all and is just dicking around trying to put more and more aspects of our already cookie cutter American existence into the direct control of the state.

We need to replace the dems and GOP with the Libertarians and Greens, or better yet get rid of all of them.

Jonah Goldberg actually claims that organic food is fascist. His reasoning?

"Nazis were obessed with the concept of organic, [...] that we were all part of the organic whole. The first european green movement feeds into nazism."

And when pointed out that liberalism centers on the belief of the importance of individual freedom as opposed to fascism which favors the state over the individual, he replies by arguing that "that was classical liberalism, not the modern american one". He counters a fact by claiming that others simply got the meaning of the word wrong.

I assume that Goldberg is a reasonably intelligent man and also an idealist. Thus he must have noticed that one of the most important american values - individual freedom - is a liberal concept.

And in order to solve this internal conflict (no good conservative can say 'liberal' without a sneer) he decided the 'liberals' got the word wrong and are really just nazis in hiding.

"Liberal Fascism" is simply an opinion piece and should not be treated as some kind of scientific work to be used to prove an assertion correct.