Originally Posted by KaiserD2

This Harvard study shows Millennials increasingly disengaged from politics. Their approval of Obama is no higher than the rest of the population (low 40s), although their approval of Congress is much lower. 80% of them think the US is headed in the wrong direction. Obama leads a generic Republican by about 8% among 30 and under voters and he leads specific names a little more--but he doesn't get 40% total against any of them! The opportunity to turn Millennials into a Hero generation is rapidly vanishing.

So their insufficient support for Democrats means they cannot be a "Hero generation". Got it.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Starting at the beginning

Economic Policy: So you believe that the current economic policy is something from the left? OK. Of ocurse, it is a virtual holdover from the Bush years, but maybe you found the Bush years too liberal too. Oddly, or maybe not, the left thinks the economic policy is simply corporatist. So what would you prefer, and how would it work? Note: the second half of that question is the important half.

You're talking about the bailouts, which are a side issue. I'm referring to Keynesianism. The stimulus, etc. It is a proven failure. Obama suggested the other day that unemployment insurance creates jobs. The economic thinking of the Democrats and the left has become delusional and absurd.

Health Care: Here, I've yet to see anything even remotely substantive from the right, so yes, the left has addressed health care under duress and in a vacuum. Of course, the plan extant is less liberal than the plan offered by Richard Nixon, and nearly identical to the one enacted by The Mitt. I guess you find Mitt to be inadequately conservative, so the source is considered liberal. Since the left is not happy about the lack of a public option (minimum requirement) or single payer (preferred), it's hard to lay claim to this. It's a GOP plan. If it's is too liberal, how do you plan to address the onging rise in HC costs? We all need HC, so how do you think access should be addressed? Having hospitals treat the indigant and eat the cost is not working any more.

Here I'm referring to the fact that Obamacare is massively unpopular, is driving costs up, not down, will bankrupt the country on a level we aren't even seeing yet, and is probably the #1 factor preventing job creation and economic recovery.

Global Warming: I hope you aren't arguing that the planet is not warming, since this is now universally agreed by all but a tiny number of climatologists, left, right and center. It's also agree that the impact will be severe and failure to contain the problem makes it cataclismic in the long run (2100 +/- 25 years). This isn't a political issue until addressing it is discussed. If cutting the use of greehouse gases isn't to your likeing, what is the conservative plan to address the problem?

The "scientific consensus" around man made global warming is a massive, fraudulent hoax. Period. End of story.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Health Care: Here, I've yet to see anything even remotely substantive from the right,

Huh? I know you don't like it, but even folks on the left say that the Ryan plan is substantive.

James50

From one of my FB friends.

"HERE ARE THE TRAITOR SENATORS THAT JUST COMPLETELY DESTROYED EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN'S CIVIL LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS: EACH AND

*EVERY* ONE OF THESE TRAITORS NEED TO BE SHOWN THE DOOR IN NOVEMBER 2012:"


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00230

Originally Posted by Deb C

From one of my FB friends.

"HERE ARE THE TRAITOR SENATORS THAT JUST COMPLETELY DESTROYED EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN'S CIVIL LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS: EACH AND

*EVERY* ONE OF THESE TRAITORS NEED TO BE SHOWN THE DOOR IN NOVEMBER 2012:"


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00230

Here's what one of my Senators wrote me:

Dear Ms. Mathews,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the issue of indefinite detention of military combatants, and the recent debates over this issue during consideration of the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I appreciate hearing from you on this very important issue.

As you may be aware, provisions included in the NDAA regarding military combatants have raised serious questions about the expansion of military power within the United States. I was very concerned about the implications of these provisions. That's why I voted four times on separate amendments to either eliminate these provisions altogether or clarify that they not apply to U.S. citizens and others inside the U.S.

One of the amendments I supported was offered by Senator Mark Udall (CO) on November 17, 2011. His amendment would have removed the provisions relating to detainee matters and replaced them with a requirement for a congressional review of detention power. Despite my vote in favor of this amendment, it failed by a vote of 38-60 on November 28, 2011.

I also supported a compromise amendment offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA) on December 1, 2011. The amendment clarified that nothing in the NDAA changed the due process rights of U.S. citizens and individuals in the U.S. This amendment passed by a vote of 99-1. While I'm pleased that the Senate at the very least passed this amendment, I would have preferred stronger and clearer language. Unfortunately, the majority of the United States Senate did not.

The Defense Authorization is extremely important for the nation and the state of New Mexico. It authorizes a raise for our service members, funding for many programs, including projects at New Mexico's Air Force Bases, White Sands Missile Range, Fort Bliss, Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs, the National Guard and Reserves, as well as authorizes "green initiatives" for the Department of Defense.

Related to this, I was able to include an amendment in the NDAA to close a loophole in the Buy America Act, making it easier for the U.S. military to buy from American solar companies. This is an important amendment that will benefit not only the Department of Defense, but also domestic solar manufacturers, including those in New Mexico.

Because of the many important provisions included in the NDAA for our brave men and women in the military, and for the New Mexico military installations so vital to our nation's security, I supported final passage of the legislation. The bill passed by a vote of 93-7 and is now being considered by a Conference Committee, which is comprised of several members from both the House and the Senate, to negotiate the differences between each chamber's versions of the NDAA. I am hopeful my colleagues on the conference committee will improve the detainee language.

Please be assured that I will continue to follow this issue and will keep your thoughts in mind should the conference committee report back a final version of the legislation for consideration by each chamber.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me. Please feel free to contact me with your concerns regarding any federal issue by visiting my website at www.tomudall.senate.gov. For more information, you may also visit my Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Senato...l/106433512869 and receive up to the minute updates through my Twitter page at http://twitter.com/senatortomudall.

Both of my Senators reportedly voted against the Udall amendment and I let them know my opinion in no uncertain terms. They have not replied to me at all.

Bernie Sanders on Defense Authorization Bill.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - The Senate today voted for a Department of Defense bill that authorizes $662 billion for the military, almost as much as last year despite the withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the year. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voted no and issued the following statement:

"The bill continues to authorize heavy spending on defense despite the end of the 9-year-old war in Iraq. Ironically, the Senate vote came on the same day when Defense Secretary Panetta was in Baghdad officially declaring that our military mission there has ended and that virtually all of the combat troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year. At a time when we have tripled defense spending since 1997 and spend more today on defense than the rest of the world combined, I get concerned that my deficit-hawk friends say we've got to cut Social Security, Medicare, education, health care and other programs that help working families, but when it comes to defense spending the sky is the limit.

"This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges. While we must aggressively pursue international terrorists and all of those who would do us harm, we must do it in a way that protects the Constitution and the civil liberties which make us proud to be Americans."

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/n...4-36e84f29b729

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

You're talking about the bailouts, which are a side issue. I'm referring to Keynesianism. The stimulus, etc. It is a proven failure. Obama suggested the other day that unemployment insurance creates jobs. The economic thinking of the Democrats and the left has become delusional and absurd.

The stimulus was not large enough; the Republicans succeeded in watering it down so that it was mainly tax cuts; thus largely a Republican plan and not a Democratic one anyway. Even so, it kept us out of a depression that Bush had made inevitable otherwise with your policies.

Here I'm referring to the fact that Obamacare is massively unpopular, is driving costs up, not down, will bankrupt the country on a level we aren't even seeing yet, and is probably the #1 factor preventing job creation and economic recovery.

How can you conclude HC reform is driving costs up when it will not be implemented until 2014? The notion that "uncertainty" is keeping our economy bad is a leading talking point by you trickle-downers, but has no reality other than an as an excuse to do nothing.

The "scientific consensus" around man made global warming is a massive, fraudulent hoax. Period. End of story.

With statements like this, I think you need to check to see that your brain and senses are in order.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The opportunity to turn Millennials into a Hero generation is rapidly vanishing.

ROFLMAO, this is such nonsense, David. We are already a Civic generation. OWS is a Civic phenomenon.

Originally Posted by James50

Huh? I know you don't like it, but even folks on the left say that the Ryan plan is substantive.

James50

I assume you mean the Ryan-Wyden Plan for Medicare. Yes, it's similar to the ACA in many respects, and leaves a public option in place as a real yardstick. If you mean the older voucher model then no.

... but then, that wasn't what JPT was whining about, and my response was focused there.

Originally Posted by Odin

ROFLMAO, this is such nonsense, David. We are already a Civic generation. OWS is a Civic phenomenon.

Lemme see if I remember right: "All hero generations are civics, but not all civic generations are heroes."

I agree with you though, it sounds incredibly condescending. It seems to imply "we won't get the hero generation I wanted" / "you guys aren't good enough for my standards."

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

You're talking about the bailouts, which are a side issue. I'm referring to Keynesianism. The stimulus, etc. It is a proven failure. Obama suggested the other day that unemployment insurance creates jobs. The economic thinking of the Democrats and the left has become delusional and absurd.

Here I'm referring to the fact that Obamacare is massively unpopular, is driving costs up, not down, will bankrupt the country on a level we aren't even seeing yet, and is probably the #1 factor preventing job creation and economic recovery.

The "scientific consensus" around man made global warming is a massive, fraudulent hoax. Period. End of story.

In your world, all of these things are true. In the real world, they are consistently countered with simple facts. That's not to say that your beliefs aren't widely held. They're simply wrong. Look at the austerity movement in Europe, the non-Keynesian approach you think works so well. So far, it has devastated Ireland and is going to worK on the rest of the Euro zone, yet you bemoan the fact that a piss-poor application of Keynesianism kept U3 unemployment here below 10%, while austerity in Europe (call it the Austrian model) is moving things toward total collapse there. Here, our interest rates on US Treasuries are actually below the rate of inflations (effectively, a negative value), while the austere Germans are paying 7% and the Italians, 9%.

I'm sure you'll argue that the Europeans are all Socialists, but these are the policies of conservative governements.

I won't even comment on the ACA and I'm less interested in arguing about AGW, when it's glaringly obvious that it's real.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

In your world, all of these things are true. In the real world, they are consistently countered with simple facts.

In the real world, all of these things are true. In your world, they're consistently countered with simple facts.

Looks like there is a new *Party* in town. I've been hearing more and more about this third party from people on both sides of the aisle. And from what I've heard, the Occupy people really like their agenda.

"Courageous Americans are joining together to create the Justice Party. Our intention is for the Justice Party to serve as a major new political party that will shape American politics in the public interest for decades to come. We seek governing authority at the local, state, Congressional, and national levels, starting in 2012 Election. We believe in the following core principles, namely:

• We are patriots. We believe in the greatness of America’s national ideals. We believe America has an indispensable purpose in the World: to demonstrate, by example, the power of peace, freedom, equal opportunity, and justice for all;

• We are dedicated to bringing integrity to the intentions of founding documents of our nation: including the Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. We are dedicated to advancing justice, peace, and freedom. America was founded in freedom—freedom to speak, to worship, to choose whatever path to happiness suits us best—but that freedom comes an equal responsibility to country, community, family, and the World.

• We believe that justice-based values are what enable a free and just society to regain its strength.These values are: pragmatism tied to principle, honest and integrity, hard work and personal initiative, self-sacrifice and self-discipline, fairness and compassion, competitive striving and fair play, and a desire to serve the nation and advance justice in solidarity with the rest of the World.

• We believe that we should measure the nation’s progress by whether every citizen has a fair shot. We believe that all citizens should have the opportunity to advance on the basis of talent and merit, and by the degree to which we promote the common success of all of our citizens. Additionally, we believe that we should measure the nation’s progress towards addressing complex global challenges, including disease, illiteracy, climate change, poverty, and strategic insecurities as central priorities towards advancing America’s moral leadership.

​

• We believe that we should measure a citizen’s worth by contribution to country and community, not by wealth or power—that those whom America has benefited most should contribute in proportion to their good fortune—and that serving others should be esteemed more highly than serving self.

http://www.justicepartyusa.net/blogs...0/?topic=75647

My question Deb, might sound a little silly, but why is there a 1984-esque blue eye staring at me on that website?

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

My question Deb, might sound a little silly, but why is there a 1984-esque blue eye staring at me on that website?

~Chas'88

I didn't even notice that and have no clue what it's about. What's your hunch?

Originally Posted by Deb C

I didn't even notice that and have no clue what it's about. What's your hunch?

Nothing good... but then again I've been having that feeling for a long while.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Deb C

I didn't even notice that and have no clue what it's about. What's your hunch?

Find out who's financing it. Please!

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Find out who's financing it. Please!

I'll look into it. Hopefully, it's financed by the people and not greedy corporations like that of the Democrats and Republicans.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

In the real world, all of these things are true. In your world, they're consistently countered with simple facts.

H-m-m-m. Where are your data? Where are your empirical results? Talk, or a stream of IP packets, is cheap. Evidence on the other hand, is not.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Find out who's financing it. Please!

If this is the same group I heard about two or three weeks ago, it's financed by a bunch of (small "l") libertarian rich people from Silicon Valley. Think Google.gov or Amazon.gov. I don't see them as saviors .. or even real players. It has "hobby" written all over it.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

In the real world, all of these things are true. In your world, they're consistently countered with simple facts.

But "simple facts" are how we tell if something is true in "the real world." If these claims you've made are countered by "simple facts," then they are not true in the real world.

Perhaps for you, "real world" mean "world as defined by my ideology and belief system" rather than "world we observe." That's the only way I can make any sense out of your post.

Originally Posted by Odin

ROFLMAO, this is such nonsense, David. We are already a Civic generation. OWS is a Civic phenomenon.

David, like Strauss and Howe, has a concept of what it means to be a Civic generation that has nothing to do with reality. Remember, the authors never knew the GIs when they were young. Neither did David. And of course, neither did I, but I lack the ideological motivation of any of those other three Boomers to reject the evident facts.

William Strauss wanted the Millennials to reverse the cultural and moral changes from the Awakening. David Kaiser wants you to be obedient storm troopers under the command of a progressive Great Leader like he imagines FDR to have been; his concept of civic health is essentially authoritarian and paternalistic. I have an ideological bias, too, but it doesn't conflict with the reality the way theirs does. I want you to revamp our civic order to make it more democratic and less plutocratic, more empowering and less paternalistic, more internationalist and less nationalistic, more peaceful and less militaristic. And you are never going to accomplish that by following any of the leaders currently in politics, of either party.

The essential, defining challenge for America in this Crisis era is that our political system is CORRUPT. It is a cesspool of bribery and graft, serving private greed rather than the public interest. Your task, my young friends -- and I admit it's a daunting one -- is to purge that corruption. You will not be able to accomplish that task by blindly and obediently following one of the corrupt leaders currently in office.

An AP Poll...yes the notoriously left slanted AP poll shows Obama has only 43% support for re-election and 52% are opposed. Only 26% think the USA is headed in the right direction. This is of course a poll of adults, with NO filters suc h as registered voter or likely voters. Of course you have to dig to find this poll. If it were for a Republican President the liberal media would be blaring these results on the hour for 2 days straight.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...um=twitterfeed

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

But "simple facts" are how we tell if something is true in "the real world." If these claims you've made are countered by "simple facts," then they are not true in the real world.

Perhaps for you, "real world" mean "world as defined by my ideology and belief system" rather than "world we observe." That's the only way I can make any sense out of your post.

Clarification since my sarcasm seems to have been missed: he believes there are "facts" supporting his views, when in reality, there are not.