Conservative VS Liberal

[leroyspuds 0]

I do see what you're up against here. I admit I was baiting PG and got the response I expected. It's entertaining in a way.

[loserbob 11]

I'm confused. Who're we talking to here ariscus or patty? We were debating with patty then she disappeared and then ariscus took up the cause. Are they tag teaming us?

I told you, theyre the same person!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

[pattygreen 5]

Implication is Native Americans deserved to be slaughtered because they were socialists!

That's not the implication at all. No one is ever deserving of slaughter. I did NOT imply that. Their way of life was socialistic in nature. They believed in sharing the wealth. They did not own anything individually. They shared their hunt with the tribe as a whole. I am not saying that any of that was bad, only that it kept them from progressing. Free enterprise is a better way. This countries greatness proves that.

{Cleo's quote}And the fact that the Indians were living the same way they had for 500 years when Columbus arrived served them well. It was only after the white man arrived with his "progress" did he spread his diseases to the Indians.

So Cleo's, you regret the life you have here? You disapprove of the "progress"? If it wasn't for free enterprise, you wouldn't have many of the things that you use every day. Man's incentive and drive to invent things and to prosper himself financially are what gave you the lifestyle you now have. It's only when mankind becomes dependent on their government for their very being that life and progress is squelched.

Public policy helps determine the kind of society we are. The Obama Democrats see a society in which ordinary people cannot fend for themselves, where they need to have their incomes supplemented, their health care insurance regulated and guaranteed, their relationships with their employers governed by union leaders. Highly educated mandarins can make better decisions for them than they can make themselves. That's the culture of dependence.The tea partiers see things differently. They're not looking for lower taxes -- half of tea party supporters, a New York Times survey found, think their taxes are fair. Nor are they financially secure -- half say someone in their household may lose their job in the next year. Two-thirds say the recession has caused some hardship in their lives.

But they recognize, correctly, that the Obama Democrats are trying to permanently enlarge government and increase citizens' dependence on it. And, invoking the language of the Founding Fathers, they believe that this will destroy the culture of independence which has enabled Americans over the past two centuries to make this the most productive and prosperous -- and the most charitably generous -- nation in the world.

Seeing our political divisions as a battle between the culture of dependence and the culture of independence helps to make sense of the divisions seen in the 2008 election. Barack Obama carried voters with incomes under $50,000 and those with incomes over $200,000, and lost those with incomes in between. He won large margins from those who never graduated from high school and from those with graduate school degrees, and barely exceeded 50 percent among those in between.

The top-and-bottom Obama coalition was in effect a coalition of those dependent on government transfers and benefits and those in what David Brooks calls "the educated class," who administer or believe that their kind of people administer those transactions. They are the natural constituency for the culture of dependence.

Interestingly, in the Massachusetts special Senate election, the purported beneficiaries of the culture of dependence -- low-income and low-education voters -- did not turn out in large numbers. In contrast, the administrators of that culture -- affluent secular professionals, public employees, university personnel -- were the one group that turned out in force and voted for the hapless Democratic candidate.

The in-between people on the income and education ladders, it turns out, are a constituency for the culture of independence. Smart conservatives like David Frum, Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam argued in 2009 books that modest-income conservative voters have had stagnant incomes over the last decade and that Republicans should offer them compensatory tax breaks.

That seemed to make sense in the wake of the 2008 election. But it's been undercut by developments since. As Susan Roesgen discovered, tea party supporters are not in the mood to be bought off with $400 tax credits. They have a longer time horizon and can see where the Obama Democrats are trying to take us.

Paul Lazarsfeld saw politics as just a matter of dollars and cents. The tea party movement reminds us of what the Founders taught -- that it has a moral dimension, as well. They risked all in the cause of the culture of independence. The polling evidence suggests that most Americans don't want to leave that behind. (Michael Barone)

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Implication is Native Americans deserved to be slaughtered because they were socialists!

That's not the implication at all. No one is ever deserving of slaughter. I did NOT imply that. Their way of life was socialistic in nature. They believed in sharing the wealth. They did not own anything individually. They shared their hunt with the tribe as a whole. I am not saying that any of that was bad, only that it kept them from progressing. Free enterprise is a better way. This countries greatness proves that.

{Cleo's quote}And the fact that the Indians were living the same way they had for 500 years when Columbus arrived served them well. It was only after the white man arrived with his "progress" did he spread his diseases to the Indians.

So Cleo's, you regret the life you have here? You disapprove of the "progress"? If it wasn't for free enterprise, you wouldn't have many of the things that you use every day. Man's incentive and drive to invent things and to prosper himself financially are what gave you the lifestyle you now have. It's only when mankind becomes dependent on their government for their very being that life and progress is squelched.

Your comment that the Indians were still living the same way they had for 500 years when Columbus arrived implied that there was something wrong with that. If that way of living worked for them, provided food, shelter and for the most part, a disease free life - then I don't see the problem. This is not about the life I have. There are people in many parts of the world whose life is still fairly primitive and many live long lives. Like in the mountains of eastern Europe. Lots of 100 year olds. Much of the progess of our society has made us sick, obese, diabetes, etc..

Plus, the Amish have shunned modern progress and are doing very well.

So, don't denigrade the Indians because they continued to live a life that worked for them.

Public policy helps determine the kind of society we are. The Obama Democrats see a society in which ordinary people cannot fend for themselves, where they need to have their incomes supplemented, their health care insurance regulated and guaranteed, their relationships with their employers governed by union leaders. Highly educated mandarins can make better decisions for them than they can make themselves. That's the culture of dependence.The tea partiers see things differently. They're not looking for lower taxes -- half of tea party supporters, a New York Times survey found, think their taxes are fair. Nor are they financially secure -- half say someone in their household may lose their job in the next year. Two-thirds say the recession has caused some hardship in their lives.

But they recognize, correctly, that the Obama Democrats are trying to permanently enlarge government and increase citizens' dependence on it. And, invoking the language of the Founding Fathers, they believe that this will destroy the culture of independence which has enabled Americans over the past two centuries to make this the most productive and prosperous -- and the most charitably generous -- nation in the world.

Seeing our political divisions as a battle between the culture of dependence and the culture of independence helps to make sense of the divisions seen in the 2008 election. Barack Obama carried voters with incomes under $50,000 and those with incomes over $200,000, and lost those with incomes in between. He won large margins from those who never graduated from high school and from those with graduate school degrees, and barely exceeded 50 percent among those in between.

The top-and-bottom Obama coalition was in effect a coalition of those dependent on government transfers and benefits and those in what David Brooks calls "the educated class," who administer or believe that their kind of people administer those transactions. They are the natural constituency for the culture of dependence.

Interestingly, in the Massachusetts special Senate election, the purported beneficiaries of the culture of dependence -- low-income and low-education voters -- did not turn out in large numbers. In contrast, the administrators of that culture -- affluent secular professionals, public employees, university personnel -- were the one group that turned out in force and voted for the hapless Democratic candidate.

The in-between people on the income and education ladders, it turns out, are a constituency for the culture of independence. Smart conservatives like David Frum, Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam argued in 2009 books that modest-income conservative voters have had stagnant incomes over the last decade and that Republicans should offer them compensatory tax breaks.

That seemed to make sense in the wake of the 2008 election. But it's been undercut by developments since. As Susan Roesgen discovered, tea party supporters are not in the mood to be bought off with $400 tax credits. They have a longer time horizon and can see where the Obama Democrats are trying to take us.

Paul Lazarsfeld saw politics as just a matter of dollars and cents. The tea party movement reminds us of what the Founders taught -- that it has a moral dimension, as well. They risked all in the cause of the culture of independence. The polling evidence suggests that most Americans don't want to leave that behind. (Michael Barone)

Where Pres. Obama and the democrats have taken us is from an economy on the brink of collapse with over 700,000 jobs being lost per month to an economy that has turned around and seeing positive job growth for the last 4 months. Of course, the teabaggers would NEVER give him credit for that.

Where Pres. Obama has taken us is from a country that allowed 30+ million to go without healthcare insurance and 40,000 die each year with many insurance abuses to those who did have insurance. That all changed with the healthcare reform.

Where Pres. Obama took us is from a foreign policy that was based on pre-emptive attacks to one where he will get us out of the two bush wars.

Where Pres. Obama took us is from a cheney policy of torture to a proud america where we dont' torture.

Where Pres. Obama took us is from a country where wall street banks and corporations were de-regulated and calling the shots to one where there is more, much needed regulations and accountability.

And as far as unions are concerned: Without them we wouldn't have a middle class. Now I know that's what the neocons want - to go back to the two class system - they would be the rich, of course, and everyone else the poor workers with no protections or safety nets. That's how things were at the turn of the 19th to 20th century and that's what they would like to return to.

And as far as the teabaggers are concerned - well, my opinion of them has been well documented on here as well as polls about who they are - basically the same 20% we've always had in this country that are against everything - mostly middle aged white men - they just gave themselves a name this time and became vocal because we have a black man in the white house. And white men are the only demographic that Pres. Obama didn't win in the 2008 election.

AND I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOUR SOURCE ON YOUR HEALTHCARE COSTS PREVIOUSLY POSTED. EITHER POST YOUR SOURCE OR ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[leroyspuds 0]

Patty, a lot of what's wrong with our culture stems from greed. Greed is what drives capitalism, which is acceptable to an extent. But not to the extent where those with the most resources victimize those with the least. Not to the extent where our environment is destroyed. Not to the extent where one country destroys an indigeneous people because they want to profit from it. Government does have a role in protecting us from greed. This didn't start with Obama. The rich and powerful do not have the right to do what ever they please regardless of the consequences on the rest of us.

Patty, why do you think so many people are depressed and anxious and on medications for it? Why is there so much violence, distrust and hatred? Our society is sick. The common working person busts their butt to survive, all the while being barraged by TV, magazine, billboard and radio ads to buy a bunch of useless junk no one needs. It takes both parents to support a family and no one is at home to care for the children and cook healthy meals. Big business is getting filthy rich off of this.

Of course, they're trying to protect their pocketbook by being against financial and environmental regulation and taxation. How do they succeed at this? Lobbyists for one, but also by making you afraid, by pitting you against others, by putting you in competition with your fellow citizens where there are too few resources for us all to prosper.

This isn't the life your god envisioned for you. Greed is one of the 7 deadly sins.

Greed - a sin of excess, excessive desire and pursuit of wealth, status, and power. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that greed was "a sin against God, just as all mortal sins, in as much as man condemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things." Greed is an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

April 2010

In any case where these polls agree is in how many Americans do not consider themselves supporters of the Tea Party - 60 percent in AP-GfK's poll, 62 percent in CBS/NYT’s.

Of course support is not in itself a gauge of commitment. In another approach, 10 percent in a CNN/ORC poll say they’ve taken active steps to support the Tea Party. On one hand there’s always concern about social-engagement bias in surveys (people who answer polls also are more apt to be socially engaged in other ways). On the other, the result is similar to the 13 percent in a Quinnipiac poll last month who called themselves “members” of the party.

In addition to measurement issues, these differences may mark the challenge in gauging support for a group that’s new to the scene, not a fully formed political party and indeed not well known. Fifty-two percent in the AP-GfK poll say they know only a little or nothing about the movement; just 16 percent say they know a great deal or a lot about it. (The rest, “some.”)

In other measures, all these recent polls have about an even division in favorable/unfavorable ratings of the Tea Party movement, which is not particularly good, since this is perhaps the most basic test of popularity. It’s 28-30 percent in the AP-GfK poll and 21-18 percent in the CBS/NYT poll, both of which offer an option to express no opinion. It was 36-34 percent in a Fox poll last week and 41-39 percent in a Washington Post poll last month.

In a potentially ominous result for GOP candidates who don’t toe its line, 66 percent of Tea Party supporters in the CBS/Times poll say they usually or always vote Republican. And another question from last week is interesting because it’s comparative, as is all election politics. Fox asked its respondents which party “best shares your values.” Result: Democratic Party 40 percent, Republican 25, Tea 19.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[leroyspuds 0]

BTW, What happened to the Native American's was not done in the name of expanding our Christian nation. It was done in the name of sin. What I do know is that even though man sinned, God used the outcome to form a nation that was christian..."

____________________________________________________

The claim that the US is a Christian nation is not historically acurate. The religious right tries to use this to justify it's desire to construct a society based on the bible and to influence laws related to abortion, stem cell research, gay marraige, and the like. The republican party takes advantage of Christians to get them to vote repubican with the promise of dominionism, when their real motivation is power and financial gain.

Dominionists:

a. Celebrate Christian nationalism, believe the US once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation.

b. promote religious supremacy, generally don't respect the equality of other religions

c. endorse theocratic visions, believe the 10 Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.

Deists: believe that a supreme being created the universe, and that this can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion.

American Founding Fathers, or Framers of the Constitution, including Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson, James Madison, John Adams, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine, were influenced by this philosophy which played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, expressed in Thomas Jefferson's letters, and the principle of religious freedom expressed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Treaty of Tripoli passed by the United States Senate, which assured the ruler of that Muslim state that the United States government "is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

[tdslf1 0]

I believe Obama did worst among the middle(only slightly worst) because the middle is so used to getting the short end, (not good enough for the country club and too much income for low income help) they don't belief half of what is told to them by government and was never going to believe there was hope anyway. Keep grinding the wheel and you might get somewhere. (thus a lower percentage for Obama, the hope guy) If you are comfortable doing sh---, but nudging up a notch every few years, stay where you are, thus a vote for Bush/Mccain, the old way that broke us.

Any hoo, it was a big blow out election that we won. Poor folk didn't have anything to lose, their life was crappy anyway, so hope flourished. Rich folks like what he had to say about altruism, and change but didn't believe he would raise taxes right away. Which he didn't.

I think most got what they wanted and if they didn't, they were uneducated about Obama's platform. About Obama policies: I'd rather win dirty than lose cute. i.e. I didn't get all I wanted in healthcare but I got healthcare for the poor.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

5 Voting Demographics Where Barack Obama Made Headlines

According to exit polls, Obama dominated the youth and minority vote

Posted November 6, 2008

1. Minorities: Ninety-six percent of black voters supported Obama. He also drew the votes of two thirds of Hispanics.

2. Young people: Obama won the under-30 crowd by 34 percentage points. This bested 19-point advantage over Bob Dole among young voters in 1996.

3. Women: Obama attracted 56 percent of female voters. Unmarried women also voted for Obama over Mccain by 70 to 29 percent.

4. White men: He had the support of 41 percent of white men. Before Obama, no Democrat since [Jimmy Carter) had earned more than 38 percent of the white male vote.

5. Hillary Clinton fans: Obama won over 84 percent of Democrats who backed Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

Sources: Associated Press, Politico , Women's Voices Women Vote

Plus Obama also got the Catholic, Jew, Asian and singles vote, whereas McCain go the rural, white, over 65, married and evangelical vote.

Now, I know for a fact that Hillary supporters were middle class, because I worked for her campaign.

All in all, I think Pres. Obama got a representative vote of the very diverse population of people here in America. :biggrin:

Edited May 14, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[BJean 16]

Patty, a lot of what's wrong with our culture stems from greed. Greed is what drives capitalism, which is acceptable to an extent. But not to the extent where those with the most resources victimize those with the least. Not to the extent where our environment is destroyed. Not to the extent where one country destroys an indigeneous people because they want to profit from it. Government does have a role in protecting us from greed. This didn't start with Obama. The rich and powerful do not have the right to do what ever they please regardless of the consequences on the rest of us.

Patty, why do you think so many people are depressed and anxious and on medications for it? Why is there so much violence, distrust and hatred? Our society is sick. The common working person busts their butt to survive, all the while being barraged by TV, magazine, billboard and radio ads to buy a bunch of useless junk no one needs. It takes both parents to support a family and no one is at home to care for the children and cook healthy meals. Big business is getting filthy rich off of this.

Of course, they're trying to protect their pocketbook by being against financial and environmental regulation and taxation. How do they succeed at this? Lobbyists for one, but also by making you afraid, by pitting you against others, by putting you in competition with your fellow citizens where there are too few resources for us all to prosper.

This isn't the life your god envisioned for you. Greed is one of the 7 deadly sins.

Greed - a sin of excess, excessive desire and pursuit of wealth, status, and power. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that greed was "a sin against God, just as all mortal sins, in as much as man condemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things." Greed is an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.

Excellent, excellent post! Well done.

[BJean 16]

BTW, What happened to the Native American's was not done in the name of expanding our Christian nation. It was done in the name of sin. What I do know is that even though man sinned, God used the outcome to form a nation that was christian..."

____________________________________________________

The claim that the US is a Christian nation is not historically acurate. The religious right tries to use this to justify it's desire to construct a society based on the bible and to influence laws related to abortion, stem cell research, gay marraige, and the like. The republican party takes advantage of Christians to get them to vote repubican with the promise of dominionism, when their real motivation is power and financial gain.

Dominionists:

a. Celebrate Christian nationalism, believe the US once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation.

b. promote religious supremacy, generally don't respect the equality of other religions

c. endorse theocratic visions, believe the 10 Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.

Deists:believe that a supreme being created the universe, and that this can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion.

American Founding Fathers, or Framers of the Constitution, including Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson, James Madison, John Adams, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine, were influenced by this philosophy which played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, expressed in Thomas Jefferson's letters, and the principle of religious freedom expressed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Treaty of Tripoli passed by the United States Senate, which assured the ruler of that Muslim state that the United States government "is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

Good information. But don't expect it to hold any sway with the religious fanatics and right wing tea baggers. They have been fully endoctrinated and please don't confuse them with the facts. It infuriates them to have facts in front of them because it means they have to spend more time finding out how they're supposed to respond from their very fundamentalist/right wing/extremist sources.

And don't worry, these things have been mapped out ad infinitim for them and they will be able to sort it out so that they can use the buzz words and rethoric to "prove" how right they are when they post a highly offended sounding retort eschewing the facts and insisting that this is a "Christian Nation" and was from the day it was founded.

If I sound negative it's because we've been down this path on several previous occasions.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Dominionists - now I have a name for the religious extremists and zealots. The description sure fits them to a T.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Even Republican defense secretary Robert Gates is calling for reductions in Pentagon spending. That says something about how bloated it is.

But of course, when it comes to spending the neocons here and elsewhere continue to yap about the social support system we have and how we should cut spending there. Cut heating oil subsidies to the elderly or WIC to the single mom, etc..

The poor are easy targets. The big corporations that benefit from cushy government military contracts are not. They have well paid lobbyists and the record speaks for itself.

[BJean 16]

I think part of the problem with having the most incredibly potent military defense in the world is that we wind up needing to get rid of the obsolete weapons. So in the case of Vietnam, we used them there. Now we're using them in Iraq. And for what?

I'll tell you for what - so that the weapons can be replaced with bigger and badder ones. That's how we got so far ahead in the arms race.

Anyone who thinks that our military is strictly for "defense" they have their head buried in the sand. We have turned into the aggressors whom we say we hate. And it is mostly about money.

We have serious problems throughout the world with irrational leaders in countries that are theocracies and extremist. But we don't have to go drop weapons of mass destruction in order to keep them from rubbing out any of their citizens who disagree with their religious leaders.

We can, with the threat of our military behind us, influence countries to treat their citizens better. And it makes sense for us (big brother) to do that. But to annihilate an entire region because we disagree with a country's policies, is ethically and morally wrong.

We need a leader who understands this. We need a strong national defense so that we can stay the super power that we are. But to use it indiscriminately is an horrific action that is criminal. And if I were president, we would be prosecuting Bush, Cheney and the whole lot of them. We need to set a precedent. We never thought we had to worry about our own leaders being so corrupt, but it turns out that we do. So we need to make sure that no administration does this again.