Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I am not attacking the rule of law.

I must have misunderstood.

Yes, that means that the niceties of parliamentary procedure and normal democratic governance have to be set aside for a while.

James50

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Also, I don't think that the average citizen wanted the government shut down or a default over the debt limit.

I agree.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Cheers

Jeez man, can I ask you to shorten it up a bit? I would like to hear your point of view, but this is too much. I much prefer the short, pithy remark to the diatribe. And when you rebut multiple posters and even start quoting yourself, my inclination is to just skip it.

???????????????

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

This was his intent. Later backtracking aside. This is what he was after--fear. Appeasement analogies are fine. But there is a reason he wanted a Hitler/Nazi one.



Well, you might want to try, especially seeing as you are on a forum that discusses generational theory.



You see, but what you call assertiveness vs non-assertiveness, I see as you're-either-with-us-or-against-us-black-white Boomer crazy. There is a reason why people are flocking to the at-least-Bush-was-a-decider rhetoric.



If that's the case, Obama has got to be one of the strongest-willed persons I've ever seen...



You're looking for a daddy. And daddies don't come in people the same generation seven years older than you.



See, you missed the point of my exercise. I wasn't limiting you to Democrats or even the 2012. My point is that no one wants to touch the job Obama has, the job you're beating Obama up for not doing correctly.



Seems to me that there is quite a bit you are pleased with...



All I can say is that your perception of reality is different from mine. I see no one really happy and Obama staving off civil war by staying in the middle.



Not my implication. Make all the discourse you want. But when you find yourself reaching for defeatist arguments see the counterproductive-ness of it. Essentially, your anger with me is that I won't validate your dissing Obama. And that makes me a horrible, evil little troll GRrrrrrrr...



Why should I make a case? I'm not the one in doubt.



Well that's the difference between you and me. I had Bush pegged the moment the Afghanistan war started. I felt like the lone brain in a sea of sheep. I kept saying, "From a cave? He orchestrated the greatest terrorist attack the world has ever seen from a cave?" I lost friends during that time. Much of family and I were not on good terms. Now I see the same sheeple mentality, this time by the Obama is satan echo chamber...



You know, that may be where this is coming from--displaced anger at (oneself, really) for being duped. If that's the case I give you permission to forgive yourself. You, hereby released from that demon. Thank you JEEZ-us.



Sorry bro. Xer in the flesh. Now I'm not an early wave Xer, but an Xer all the same. And proud of it, bro.



You guys keep using this word "intelligent" when I have not. I said "smart" and "competent". Whatever. Fine, I'll use "intelligent." Now we can have a semantics debate on what those words mean (god I hope not). But the gist of it is you think you know his limitations better than he does. Of course he can seek advice. No one is questioning that. But for what other reason could you possibly think he has not considered the things you keep running on constant loop about other than a belief that he lacks the intelligence?



Now why do I get the feeling that you don't actually believe that?



I have 3 words for you -- Barack Hussein Obama.



Well, wah wah wah poor you. Sometimes positive thoughts are wrong. So I should have no more positive thoughts ever again. Grow up.



I did.



Talk all you want. Don't need my permission.



A negative spin on calling Republicans Hitler--HA!





Cheers.

No this.

Sorry, perhaps I was trying to be too cute by shortening perhaps the longest post ever.

We have few rules here and I am certainly not an enforcer of anything, but can tell you I keep going when I see this much verbiage.

James50

I've skipped over many a masturbatory tome here. Mine is at least a conversation. But to each his own. Cheers.

Originally Posted by James50

No this.

Sorry, perhaps I was trying to be too cute by shortening perhaps the longest post ever.

We have few rules here and I am certainly not an enforcer of anything, but can tell you I keep going when I see this much verbiage.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

1. Most of them voted for TARP and it passed. [et cetera]

Instead of discussing the things I listed that the party's people in Congress have been doing, either to dispute the facts or to offer a different interpretation, you created a list of other things they have done. Why do you think this is answering my argument?

You have a one sided view of things. On the democratic side, they pushed through a major social program (ACA) without achieving societal consensus. They rammed it through even after the election of Scott Brown. This was intransigence.

I disagree with that interpretation. First of all, there was a societal consensus in favor of comprehensive health-care reform. Secondly, they did not "ram" anything through; that was a talk-show-host spin on the matter which has no relationship to the fact. Third, the fact that the measure passed without a single Republican vote in favor is not evidence of Democratic intransigence.

I do not have a one-sided view of things. I have a historical view. There have been times in the past -- most of the party's history, in fact -- when the Republicans were a responsible party that could be trusted to govern without demolishing the government and the nation's prosperity, and when those who were not hardcore ideologues had a place in the party, as is still true of the Democrats. I measure today's Republicans not against today's Democrats but against the Republicans of the past. I compare them to Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller, even Barry Goldwater, who was considered a wild-eyed reactionary in his day but compared to our contemporary GOP looks like a font of sagacity and moderation.

The party has changed, and not for the better. That is a fact. Denial of it because the fact seems "crazy" is not being in tune with reality.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

I've skipped over many a masturbatory tome here. Mine is at least a conversation. But to each his own. Cheers.

Oh well, only a sentiment I share with a famous mathematician.

I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not had the time to make it shorter.

Blaise Pascal

James50

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Instead of discussing the things I listed that the party's people in Congress have been doing, either to dispute the facts or to offer a different interpretation, you created a list of other things they have done. Why do you think this is answering my argument?

For convenience sake, please make a short list so I know what you are talking about if it is not what I listed.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

It is intemperate and you are exaggerating.

James50

Unfortunately Brian is correct and NOT exaggerating. The Tea Party is rapidly becoming a threat to the republic. They are acting like bratty children throwing temper tantrums because Obama is too chicken to put his foot down. What we need is a president who will go to the bully pulpit and whip up the American people into a fury against these numb-nuts.

Trying to "compromise" with crazies and nutcases who are unwilling to compromise is not "compromise", it is CAPITULATION. It IS appeasement. it IS no different than trying to negotiate with Hitler. These are people who think Brian, Pat, Kiff, Eric, Amy, and myself are "not real Americans". These are people who want to impose "Biblical Law".

This is the kind of borderline treasonous nonsense we are dealing with:

Right-wing commentator: Poor people voting is ‘un-American’

No, Mr, Vadum, YOU are Un-American. This "poor person" wants you and every single ***hole who agrees with you to got to Hell.\


What would be the American equivalent to Romans throwing traitors off the Tarpeian Rock?

Originally Posted by Odin

Unfortunately Brian is correct and NOT exaggerating. The Tea Party is rapidly becoming a threat to the republic.

The really amusing part is that the Tea Party thinks the same thing about you.

Originally Posted by Odin

Trying to "compromise" with crazies and nutcases who are unwilling to compromise is not "compromise", it is CAPITULATION.

Again, this is how they view you and your fellow travelers.

This need that you have to demonize the opposing team is getting really old. This is the sort of over the top crap I have come to expect from boomers. The majority of the Millies that I have encountered, to their credit, tend not to do this. Your opponents are no more insane than you are and what they are doing makes sense from their point of view.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

But from my perspective, Eric, that's a trick question because it supposes that I see him primarily as being un-smart.

So you can't answer the question?

I think he did some smart things in the past, getting a few major accomplishments through the previous congress with much travail and compromise; but I wonder about recently.

Trashing the environment is not smart, for example. He should not buckle under to the oil and gas companies and let them pollute. He needs to use all his presidential powers to do what the crazy Tea Party congress won't let him do, not ape their destructive ways.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Whatever makes you happy. Someone else may see the "crazy" in calling our own people Hitler and Obama the idiot fool for not seeing it.

It is foolish, Mr. Summer, not to realize just who the 1/3 or 1/2 of our own people are, just as much as it was folly not to realize whom many of the Germans were in 1938. I feel less in common with the tea-party folks today than with the Germans of today. Just because they live within the borders of the same country I do, does not mean I can't see them for who they are. You should too.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Yes, but it was intended to evoke the fear and dread associated with Hitler. That is the only reason why anyone makes Hilter analogies. The only reason. Tea Partiers and other protesters throwing up Obama as Hitler signs citing one similarity between the two as rationale is prime example. And I have been just as vocal with them in the streets. Ya know...I'm starting to think talking to left-wingers is worse than talking to right.

It is not about arousing fear, so much as recognizing the situation as it is.

Originally Posted by James50

You are talking yourself into something that does not exist. Neither the Republicans nor the Tea Party is as reactionary as you like to portray it. They have a point of view which they are pursuing like any political movement. Right now, they feel like they have the wind at their back and that the country is on their side. Why should they back off? But to say they are bent on some kind of authoritarian domination or theocracy is just exaggerated rhetoric. They want smaller government and lower taxes. They know it will take big changes to bring this about. Like you I worry about such a policy leading to corporate domination beyond what we have now. This concern is legitimate and I take comfort in their origins in a hatred of TARP. The great majority of the people you fear are ordinary citizens upset at the course of the country. This does not make them authoritarians. When you write like this, I feel like you are drifting into a world that will only lead to exactly what you fear.

James50

I think it is simply a matter that, first of all, they feel the wind at their back, as you say, so they aren't going to back off. So in that case, nothing can be gained through compromise, unless you (i.e. Obama) are in just as strong a position, and are just as willing to stand by it. That's what we need now, even if one is seeking compromise in hopes of accomplishing anything today.

But second, the Republicans are convinced believers in the 3 ideologies: free markets, old-time religion, and militarism. They have been since Reagan. That they are very rigidly ideological is just the unfortunate fact. Many here would say it's because they are Boomers, although many of them are also of other generations, especially X.

And third, they ARE authoritarian. The surveys and polls show that most Tea Party folks are Christian right-wing. Fundamentalist or evangelical religion is authoritarian. They also think corporations should be left to their own devices. They think people should submit to this corporate domination of our country, and live within the conformist, obedient lifestyle of the corporate, religious and military worlds.

As has been made clear time and again, the right-wing since Reagan has used the slogans of "freedom" to deceive people into supporting authoritarian policies. It's too bad many are deceived by this, but that doesn't change the fact that it is utter and ruthless deceit. Freedom for the businessman is NOT freedom for most people, except perhaps for the businessman pursuing wealth in whatever way he wishes regardless of the needs of others or the country.

Originally Posted by James50

Jeez man, can I ask you to shorten it up a bit? I would like to hear your point of view, but this is too much. I much prefer the short, pithy remark to the diatribe. And when you rebut multiple posters and even start quoting yourself, my inclination is to just skip it.

Are you any relation to Glick?

James50

I skipped it too. The version of Glick that supports Obama, it seems like indeed. Not quite so bad as him yet, but.......

Glick is one of only 2 people here I have ever put on ignore; in what, 14 years now.

Re. Mr. Summer, I don't really understand how a person who joined on July 29, 2011 could be entitled a "senior member." Oh well........

Originally Posted by James50

1. Most of them voted for TARP and it passed.

Following their leader Bush, not Obama.

2. Most of them voted against the stimulus because they thought it was bad policy. They lost.

Any sensible politicians knew the stimulus was needed. The opposition is ideological only. Arguably it was not the best package we could have gotten, by a long shot, thanks partly to the opposition. But it was better than nothing.

3. They voted to keep the Bush tax rates and lower the payroll tax on employees. Many democrats voted with them and the President signed it. Personally, I think this was bad policy, but lower taxes is what they stand for. There is no reason to expect them to do something else except in the case of a grand bargain.

No, but there's no reason to suppose their support for tax cuts to be anything other than ideological intransigence. As you say, it's what they stand for. They continue to be completely rigid about it, dooming any potential compromise or "grand bargain" on the budget, and ruining the debt-ceiling talks.

3. After the Senate refused to follow the statutory budget process, in the republican eyes, the only tool they were left with was the debt ceiling. They had won the previous election vowing to cut spending. The democrats left them with only one tool. They used it. There is recklessness enough to go around on all sides.

Once again you bring up the so-called Senate refusal. Evidently Senate action was not needed, or we would not have a budget today; but we do. So, that's irrelevant. Their tool can only be considered to be one of extortion and blackmail. No sensible legislators would do what they did, under any circumstances. That is recklessness on one side only.

On the democratic side, they pushed through a major social program (ACA) without achieving societal consensus. They rammed it through even after the election of Scott Brown. This was intransigence. The President ignored the best chance in recent years to get our deficit under control with Simpson-Bowles. If he loses the next election it will be because of these strategic mistakes.

James50

It was about the only time Obama did even close to the right thing. He fought for something worth fighting for, and got it done. He got it passed according to the law, using a duly-elected large majority, in a watered-down version that Democrats-in-name-only could support. What he got passed WAS what the country wanted, as far as it could be gotten. The country wanted health care reform. The right-wingers complained afterward, and so did some of us on the Left, and so the notion is about that it's not what the country wanted; but it WAS. Most people realized going in to 2009 that Health Care Reform was needed among other things in order for business to operate profitably in this country; and they were correct.

Originally Posted by Galen

The progressives do not seem to have anything similar occurring and as long as such a movement continues to be absent then I must conclude that the progressive ideology of the last century may have run its course. As strange as it may appear I have been looking for such a movement as a way to check on which outcomes are most probable.

What I never get is, if an ideology of the last century has run its course, then why is the alternative an ideology from 3 centuries ago?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What I never get is, if an ideology of the last century has run its course, then why is the alternative an ideology from 3 centuries ago?

It is one of the possible alternatives for the future and one of its primary virtues is that it tends to minimize coercion which tends to be a good thing in almost all circumstances. All of the other possibilities are much worse since they are either authoritarian in nature, will fail to grow the economy or worse both and I don't see any good coming from that. So far as I am able to discern it is unreasonable to expect the current ongoing attempt at a mixed economy will survive the fourth turning.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think it is simply a matter that, first of all, they feel the wind at their back, as you say, so they aren't going to back off. So in that case, nothing can be gained through compromise, unless you (i.e. Obama) are in just as strong a position, and are just as willing to stand by it. That's what we need now, even if one is seeking compromise in hopes of accomplishing anything today.

Translation: there is no compromise with these people (ie the other side). Compromise is another word for losing.

But second, the Republicans are convinced believers in the 3 ideologies: free markets, old-time religion, and militarism. They have been since Reagan. That they are very rigidly ideological is just the unfortunate fact. Many here would say it's because they are Boomers, although many of them are also of other generations, especially X.

The left is just as ideological. Any deviation from ideology should be punished.

And third, they ARE authoritarian. The surveys and polls show that most Tea Party folks are Christian right-wing. Fundamentalist or evangelical religion is authoritarian. They also think corporations should be left to their own devices. They think people should submit to this corporate domination of our country, and live within the conformist, obedient lifestyle of the corporate, religious and military worlds.

The left uses coercion to accomplish its ends as well.

As has been made clear time and again, the right-wing since Reagan has used the slogans of "freedom" to deceive people into supporting authoritarian policies. It's too bad many are deceived by this, but that doesn't change the fact that it is utter and ruthless deceit. Freedom for the businessman is NOT freedom for most people, except perhaps for the businessman pursuing wealth in whatever way he wishes regardless of the needs of others or the country.

Right wingers have always thought the left was deceitful.

You are becoming the mirror image of what you fear with the same levels of intolerance and temptation to authoritarianism.

The message from both sides is increasingly sounding like: "We cannot win unless we are tough enough and uncompromising enough to make the other side knuckle under. We must be pure to our ideology no matter the consequences"

The polarization continues, but we must hold to the rule of law.

James50

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Once again you bring up the so-called Senate refusal. Evidently Senate action was not needed, or we would not have a budget today; but we do. So, that's irrelevant.

The Senate refused to follow the budget process. In the absence of that process, the budget gets made in the middle of the night under threat of government shutdown by lobbyists in one giant vomiting forth of a bill. The House passed a budget I am sure you find hateful, but the Senate passed nothing. There was no place for compromise because the other side never put anything on the table. Those interested in a lower deficit had only one tool to bring the other side to the table and that was the debt ceiling. This is not irrelevant if you are going to continue to say that the debt ceiling fight was a sign of Republican intransigence and ideology.

I wish people like yourself would advocate for a Democratic budget from the house you control (ie the Senate). Put it out there. No filibuster can stop you as the budget process cannot be filibustered. That the democrats cannot bring themselves to compromise within their own party in the Senate shows just how intransigent they are. They love to get in front of the cameras and accuse the other side of being uncompromising. When I hear that, I want to say "Shut up, get in the committee rooms, and work out something. Show us what you got." Are they too scared? Trying to score political points? Don't know what they want? One of the main functions of the legislative process is to create a budget and the democrats are AWOL.

James50

Originally Posted by Odin

Unfortunately Brian is correct and NOT exaggerating. The Tea Party is rapidly becoming a threat to the republic. They are acting like bratty children throwing temper tantrums because Obama is too chicken to put his foot down. What we need is a president who will go to the bully pulpit and whip up the American people into a fury against these numb-nuts.

Trying to "compromise" with crazies and nutcases who are unwilling to compromise is not "compromise", it is CAPITULATION. It IS appeasement. it IS no different than trying to negotiate with Hitler. These are people who think Brian, Pat, Kiff, Eric, Amy, and myself are "not real Americans". These are people who want to impose "Biblical Law".

There is a Tea Partier down my street who put a marquee up in front of his house some time ago. He changes the message periodically. Right now it reads, "Get the USA out of debt -- Stop all Foreign Aid." Right. As if that's going to solve the debt problem all by itself.

Brian is right. You can't reason with these people.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

There is a Tea Partier down my street who put a marquee up in front of his house some time ago. He changes the message periodically. Right now it reads, "Get the USA out of debt -- Stop all Foreign Aid." Right. As if that's going to solve the debt problem all by itself.

Brian is right. You can't reason with these people.

The 50-ton gorrila in the room that the Establishment doesn't dare mention is the Defense budget. I reject any deficit-reduction plan that is not centered on massive defense cuts.

Originally Posted by Galen

It is one of the possible alternatives for the future and one of its primary virtues is that it tends to minimize coercion which tends to be a good thing in almost all circumstances. All of the other possibilities are much worse since they are either authoritarian in nature, will fail to grow the economy or worse both and I don't see any good coming from that. So far as I am able to discern it is unreasonable to expect the current ongoing attempt at a mixed economy will survive the fourth turning.

Poverty is itself a lack of freedom. It is the inability to participate fully in such prosperity as exists. It means making stark choices that others need not make -- like whether one gets dental care of a toothache or pays the rent. It means that in practice the poor must sell out everything -- including individuality and honor -- for what is desirable or even necessary.

"Everyone for himself" is one of the lowest bases for ethical standards. Hunger is coercion. Poverty-enhanced ill health is coercion. Subordination to entrenched wealth in a system that recognizes no other virtue is coercion.

Originally Posted by James50

The polarization continues, but we must hold to the rule of law.

James50

This is why I thought Obama's handling of the debt-ceiling issue was brilliant. Even crazy Boomer Bill Clinton was trying to convince Obama to evoke the Fourteenth Amendment and go over Congress's head. But Obama understood the consequences. Trying to even temporarily usurp the authority of Congress would create a Constitutional crises and enrage those thinking he was claiming dictatorial powers, a tip-off to the legit civil war some on this board seem set on having. The resilience of this man is beyond admirable. Historians in the future will label him the president who saved America from the waring clutches of her own children...