Hmmm... I say what frustrates me the most about Moderates is when they mislabel people on the reasonable Left "extremists" and compare them to extremists on the Right.
Also, when they claim that people on the reasonable Left have a "marked inability to comprehend (never mind appreciate) nuance"... just because the reasonable Leftist disagrees with them. That is incredibly frustrating!
Dude, you said that free enterprise capitalism (Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett - not just great capitalists but great philanthropists as well) is a "bit better" than Stalinism, Maoism, and the Khmer Rouge. You said that we should have negotiated with the Taliban (something that even Bernie Sanders apparently found untenable). You think that people should be able to retire at age 55. And you take as gospel everything that Keith Olbermann utters. Methinks that, yes, most people would find you a tad out of the mainstream.
That would be the thing I find MOST frustrating about so-called Moderates... how they distort the positions of those they disagree with. First they distort their positions, then they call them "extremists" (based on those distortions).
Also, this obsession with the "mainstream". Personally, I'm proud to be outside it. I do not think this makes me an "extremist", however. More evolved, perhaps.
You didn't say that free market capitalism was a "bit better" than those regimes? You didn't say that we should have handed over evidence to the Taliban and bin Laden to an organization predominantly populated by dictatorships? You didn't agree with Thom Hartmann that people in this country should be able to retire at 55? You didn't agree with Alan Grayson that Daniel Webster was on a par with the Taliban when it comes to women's rights? You don't always agree with Olbermann? I'm trying to figure out exactly how I distorted anything here.......And you, more evolved? Wow.
Will: You didn't say that free market capitalism was a "bit better" than those regimes?
No. My comments were in regards to laissez faire free market capitalism. We haven't yet devolved to the point where we've got no rules. Although we are getting closer. The "bit better" was a joke in response to your ridiculous over-the-top selection of the worst repressive and murderous regimes you could think of.
I'm for regulated capitalism and a mixed economy (and throwing more socialism into the mix). People in the mainstream believe there should be rules. Also, one of the ways I'd like to add more socialism is via a single payer national health care system. This is also supported by people in the mainstream.
Will: You didn't say that we should have handed over evidence to the Taliban and bin Laden to an organization predominantly populated by dictatorships?
I think we should have followed the rules prescribed by the UN charter. Specifically, Article 33, of the UN Charter says "The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice".
bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum by telling them they had to turn over bin Laden unconditionally. An ultimatum isn't seeking a solution by negotiation. I wish we had TRIED negotiation because I'm anti-war and I think we should have explored ALL options to avoid it. A MAJORITY of those in the mainstream are now opposed to continuing the Afghanistan war, so, yet again; I fail to see how this makes me an extremist.
Will: You didn't agree with Thom Hartmann that people in this country should be able to retire at 55?
Thom Hartmann's plan would open up jobs for the younger generation by allowing people, if they choose to, retire at 55. Nobody would be required to retire if they did not want to. This plan would provide a great economic stimulus. People in the mainstream would support it, IMO.
Will: You didn't agree with Alan Grayson that Daniel Webster was on a par with the Taliban when it comes to women's rights?
Webster is absolutely not "on par" with the Taliban when it comes to women's rights. But Alan Grayson said no such thing. He said Webster believes wives should be subservient to their husbands... just like the Taliban. That's all, nothing more. People in the mainstream support equality between husbands and wives and oppose religious fundamentalism.
Will: You don't always agree with Olbermann?
I'm not aware of Olbermann's position on every topic. I agree with him a lot of the time. I'm in strong disagreement with him regarding sports being entertaining and worthy of news coverage. I'm probably out of the mainstream on that one.
Will: I'm trying to figure out exactly how I distorted anything here... And you, more evolved? Wow.
No, I think you want me to respond so use my words against me... to "prove" you aren't distorting. Also, I'm only evolved in regards to my political views. My faction of the Democratic Party is known as the "progressives" because we're forward thinkers. We're out ahead of where everybody else will eventually end up.
In conclusion: Methinks I'm quite in step with the mainstream... I only want to push things a little further.
From dictionay.com... Progressive (adjective) [1] favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters. [2] Making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc. [3] Characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement...
Sounds evolved to me.
Who would oppose "making progress toward better conditions"? Conservatives (yes) and Moderates (when in agreement with Conservatives).
1) Good joke, wd. You have any idea how many tens of millions of people that Stalin, Mao, and the Khmer Rouge slaughtered for no other reason than the fact that these people owned some land and/or had some differing views? I find your joke "a bit" distasteful.............2) There isn't one, single solitary mainstream politician FROM EITHER PARTY who would have even considered that ridiculous offer (showing them the evidence, my God) from the Taliban. Bubkas, nada, zilch. I don't like war, either, wd, but when we're attacked like we were on 9/11, we need to respond and respond vociferously.............3) This plan would be turning Social Security into a welfare program (the fact that certain people would be putting significantly less in and getting significantly more back). And, besides, we're eventually going to be returning to full employment. Incentivizing people to not be productive when they're still in their productive years is absolutely the wrong way to go, IMO.............
4) So, using this logic, Joe Blow, because he listens to Wagner like the Nazis used to, we can call the fellow "Nazi Joe".......I mean, come on here, there are just certain comparisons that we shouldn't be making.
And society needs BOTH liberals AND conservatives, wd. We need liberals to push the agenda and we need conservatives to make sure that the agenda is prudent. Not that the liberals and conservatives from any given era are always administering their functions properly, of course. FDR in his constant pushing forward of excise taxes, for example, wasn't the proper type of progress back in the '30s. This, and the conservatives' objection to desegregation in the '60s wasn't the proper type of restraint. As I think that I've stated many times before, governing is often a balancing act.............I would also add that progress and the tools necessary to achieve it can frequently be defined differently. You, for instance, see a single payer health-care system as a form of progress. I, on the other hand, while I agree with your goal of 100% coverage, much prefer the market-oriented approach (with oversight) of former Obama adviser, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel.......Different paths, I guess is what I'm trying to underscore here.
Will: So, using this logic, Joe Blow, because he listens to Wagner like the Nazis used to, we can call the fellow "Nazi Joe"...
Absolutely not! There is a HUGE difference between believing wives should be subservient to their husbands... and listening to Wagner.
Will: I agree with your goal of 100% coverage, much prefer the market-oriented approach...
Your approach cannot provide 100 percent coverage. It isn't a "market-oriented" approach, it is a "profit-oriented" approach. Under the approach you favor, money that could go to covering everyone is instead diverted to huge profits.
It's profits in exchange for human lives... and immoral, IMO.
There's a lot LESS of a huge difference between that (Wagner was a big anti-Semite, btw) and the idiotic analogy by Mr. Grayson of "Taliban Dan". Now THAT was a huge difference.............My approach (which is essentially former Obama adviser Dr. Ezekial Emanuel's approach) in fact DOES provide 100% coverage. You really need to get your facts right, wd. And I much prefer having private enterprise compete (under the strict oversight of health-boards) for my business than have to rely on a frigging government that can't even run what it's running now (according to "60 Minutes", Medicare fraud has now eclipsed drug dealing in Florida as the number one crime). You and your fucking government.
The government is "We the People". I'm in favor of the people of the United States (through our elected representatives) providing what we need at no profit.
Will: Dr. Ezekial Emanuel's approach... in fact DOES provide 100% coverage. You really need to get your facts right, wd
I do have my facts right. I know Emanuel CLAIMS his plan will provide 100 percent coverage, but I don't believe it. In any case, the cost has got to be much higher. How can doing something for profit cost less then doing it not-for-profit? Is there some magic involved?
Regarding the fraud -- we need to work at diminishing that obviously. But I guess you think there is no such thing as corporate fraud?
You don't believe it. LOL you haven't read one page of the proposal and suddenly you're an expert on this, too? My God. And it's called competition, wd. That's how the prices come down and, believe it not, a little overhead, isn't necessarily a bad thing. I point again to that "60 Minutes" piece (real journalism, not imecilic spin-merchanting like you and thinkregress) which shows how Medicare fraud has become the #1 criminal activity on Florida, PASSING DRUGS!!!......And since when does "we the people" automatically mean giving more and more power to a sluggish/ineffectual central government. Dr. Emanuel comes out with a fresh new plan that diffuses some of that power and all that you can frigging do is crap on it, without even having analyzed it (and, no, reading Amazon reviews isn't the same as analyzing). Dr. Emanuel is a Democrat, btw (you're always accusing me of slamming Democrats).
The prices will be lower then not-for-profit due to competition? So it's magic, just like I said. And, yes, I'm crapping on Ezekial Emanuel's plan. I don't care that he's a Democrat.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research says, "Ezekiel Emanuel Seriously Misrepresents Arguments on Health Care Savings".
Apparently Ezekiel Emanuel thinks retaining the huge profits for everyone involved is possible while also bringing down costs (via the magic of competition).
Sounds to me like he's a corporate Democrat like his brother Rahm. You're aren't always bashing them, you love them.
No, it's not magic, wd. It's free enterprise. The plan that we had at work got too expensive and so got a different one with better coverage and at a better price. We wouldn't have been able to do that with a single payer monopoly................Of course you found somebody who didn't like it (stop the presses LOL). There isn't a plan out there that's perfect and that everybody agrees with (a lot of conservatives out there don't like the Emanuel plan because it has health boards and significant oversight). But his plan has the best from both sides of the aisle and would work far better than some idiotic British model, IMO.
15 comments:
Hmmm... I say what frustrates me the most about Moderates is when they mislabel people on the reasonable Left "extremists" and compare them to extremists on the Right.
Also, when they claim that people on the reasonable Left have a "marked inability to comprehend (never mind appreciate) nuance"... just because the reasonable Leftist disagrees with them. That is incredibly frustrating!
Dude, you said that free enterprise capitalism (Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett - not just great capitalists but great philanthropists as well) is a "bit better" than Stalinism, Maoism, and the Khmer Rouge. You said that we should have negotiated with the Taliban (something that even Bernie Sanders apparently found untenable). You think that people should be able to retire at age 55. And you take as gospel everything that Keith Olbermann utters. Methinks that, yes, most people would find you a tad out of the mainstream.
That would be the thing I find MOST frustrating about so-called Moderates... how they distort the positions of those they disagree with. First they distort their positions, then they call them "extremists" (based on those distortions).
Also, this obsession with the "mainstream". Personally, I'm proud to be outside it. I do not think this makes me an "extremist", however. More evolved, perhaps.
You didn't say that free market capitalism was a "bit better" than those regimes? You didn't say that we should have handed over evidence to the Taliban and bin Laden to an organization predominantly populated by dictatorships? You didn't agree with Thom Hartmann that people in this country should be able to retire at 55? You didn't agree with Alan Grayson that Daniel Webster was on a par with the Taliban when it comes to women's rights? You don't always agree with Olbermann? I'm trying to figure out exactly how I distorted anything here.......And you, more evolved? Wow.
Will: You didn't say that free market capitalism was a "bit better" than those regimes?
No. My comments were in regards to laissez faire free market capitalism. We haven't yet devolved to the point where we've got no rules. Although we are getting closer. The "bit better" was a joke in response to your ridiculous over-the-top selection of the worst repressive and murderous regimes you could think of.
I'm for regulated capitalism and a mixed economy (and throwing more socialism into the mix). People in the mainstream believe there should be rules. Also, one of the ways I'd like to add more socialism is via a single payer national health care system. This is also supported by people in the mainstream.
Will: You didn't say that we should have handed over evidence to the Taliban and bin Laden to an organization predominantly populated by dictatorships?
I think we should have followed the rules prescribed by the UN charter. Specifically, Article 33, of the UN Charter says "The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice".
bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum by telling them they had to turn over bin Laden unconditionally. An ultimatum isn't seeking a solution by negotiation. I wish we had TRIED negotiation because I'm anti-war and I think we should have explored ALL options to avoid it. A MAJORITY of those in the mainstream are now opposed to continuing the Afghanistan war, so, yet again; I fail to see how this makes me an extremist.
Will: You didn't agree with Thom Hartmann that people in this country should be able to retire at 55?
Thom Hartmann's plan would open up jobs for the younger generation by allowing people, if they choose to, retire at 55. Nobody would be required to retire if they did not want to. This plan would provide a great economic stimulus. People in the mainstream would support it, IMO.
Will: You didn't agree with Alan Grayson that Daniel Webster was on a par with the Taliban when it comes to women's rights?
Webster is absolutely not "on par" with the Taliban when it comes to women's rights. But Alan Grayson said no such thing. He said Webster believes wives should be subservient to their husbands... just like the Taliban. That's all, nothing more. People in the mainstream support equality between husbands and wives and oppose religious fundamentalism.
Will: You don't always agree with Olbermann?
I'm not aware of Olbermann's position on every topic. I agree with him a lot of the time. I'm in strong disagreement with him regarding sports being entertaining and worthy of news coverage. I'm probably out of the mainstream on that one.
Will: I'm trying to figure out exactly how I distorted anything here... And you, more evolved? Wow.
No, I think you want me to respond so use my words against me... to "prove" you aren't distorting. Also, I'm only evolved in regards to my political views. My faction of the Democratic Party is known as the "progressives" because we're forward thinkers. We're out ahead of where everybody else will eventually end up.
In conclusion: Methinks I'm quite in step with the mainstream... I only want to push things a little further.
From dictionay.com... Progressive (adjective) [1] favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters. [2] Making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc. [3] Characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement...
Sounds evolved to me.
Who would oppose "making progress toward better conditions"? Conservatives (yes) and Moderates (when in agreement with Conservatives).
1) Good joke, wd. You have any idea how many tens of millions of people that Stalin, Mao, and the Khmer Rouge slaughtered for no other reason than the fact that these people owned some land and/or had some differing views? I find your joke "a bit" distasteful.............2) There isn't one, single solitary mainstream politician FROM EITHER PARTY who would have even considered that ridiculous offer (showing them the evidence, my God) from the Taliban. Bubkas, nada, zilch. I don't like war, either, wd, but when we're attacked like we were on 9/11, we need to respond and respond vociferously.............3) This plan would be turning Social Security into a welfare program (the fact that certain people would be putting significantly less in and getting significantly more back). And, besides, we're eventually going to be returning to full employment. Incentivizing people to not be productive when they're still in their productive years is absolutely the wrong way to go, IMO.............
4) So, using this logic, Joe Blow, because he listens to Wagner like the Nazis used to, we can call the fellow "Nazi Joe".......I mean, come on here, there are just certain comparisons that we shouldn't be making.
And society needs BOTH liberals AND conservatives, wd. We need liberals to push the agenda and we need conservatives to make sure that the agenda is prudent. Not that the liberals and conservatives from any given era are always administering their functions properly, of course. FDR in his constant pushing forward of excise taxes, for example, wasn't the proper type of progress back in the '30s. This, and the conservatives' objection to desegregation in the '60s wasn't the proper type of restraint. As I think that I've stated many times before, governing is often a balancing act.............I would also add that progress and the tools necessary to achieve it can frequently be defined differently. You, for instance, see a single payer health-care system as a form of progress. I, on the other hand, while I agree with your goal of 100% coverage, much prefer the market-oriented approach (with oversight) of former Obama adviser, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel.......Different paths, I guess is what I'm trying to underscore here.
Will: So, using this logic, Joe Blow, because he listens to Wagner like the Nazis used to, we can call the fellow "Nazi Joe"...
Absolutely not! There is a HUGE difference between believing wives should be subservient to their husbands... and listening to Wagner.
Will: I agree with your goal of 100% coverage, much prefer the market-oriented approach...
Your approach cannot provide 100 percent coverage. It isn't a "market-oriented" approach, it is a "profit-oriented" approach. Under the approach you favor, money that could go to covering everyone is instead diverted to huge profits.
It's profits in exchange for human lives... and immoral, IMO.
There's a lot LESS of a huge difference between that (Wagner was a big anti-Semite, btw) and the idiotic analogy by Mr. Grayson of "Taliban Dan". Now THAT was a huge difference.............My approach (which is essentially former Obama adviser Dr. Ezekial Emanuel's approach) in fact DOES provide 100% coverage. You really need to get your facts right, wd. And I much prefer having private enterprise compete (under the strict oversight of health-boards) for my business than have to rely on a frigging government that can't even run what it's running now (according to "60 Minutes", Medicare fraud has now eclipsed drug dealing in Florida as the number one crime). You and your fucking government.
Will: You and your fucking government.
The government is "We the People". I'm in favor of the people of the United States (through our elected representatives) providing what we need at no profit.
Will: Dr. Ezekial Emanuel's approach... in fact DOES provide 100% coverage. You really need to get your facts right, wd
I do have my facts right. I know Emanuel CLAIMS his plan will provide 100 percent coverage, but I don't believe it. In any case, the cost has got to be much higher. How can doing something for profit cost less then doing it not-for-profit? Is there some magic involved?
Regarding the fraud -- we need to work at diminishing that obviously. But I guess you think there is no such thing as corporate fraud?
You don't believe it. LOL you haven't read one page of the proposal and suddenly you're an expert on this, too? My God. And it's called competition, wd. That's how the prices come down and, believe it not, a little overhead, isn't necessarily a bad thing. I point again to that "60 Minutes" piece (real journalism, not imecilic spin-merchanting like you and thinkregress) which shows how Medicare fraud has become the #1 criminal activity on Florida, PASSING DRUGS!!!......And since when does "we the people" automatically mean giving more and more power to a sluggish/ineffectual central government. Dr. Emanuel comes out with a fresh new plan that diffuses some of that power and all that you can frigging do is crap on it, without even having analyzed it (and, no, reading Amazon reviews isn't the same as analyzing). Dr. Emanuel is a Democrat, btw (you're always accusing me of slamming Democrats).
The prices will be lower then not-for-profit due to competition? So it's magic, just like I said. And, yes, I'm crapping on Ezekial Emanuel's plan. I don't care that he's a Democrat.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research says, "Ezekiel Emanuel Seriously Misrepresents Arguments on Health Care Savings".
Apparently Ezekiel Emanuel thinks retaining the huge profits for everyone involved is possible while also bringing down costs (via the magic of competition).
Sounds to me like he's a corporate Democrat like his brother Rahm. You're aren't always bashing them, you love them.
No, it's not magic, wd. It's free enterprise. The plan that we had at work got too expensive and so got a different one with better coverage and at a better price. We wouldn't have been able to do that with a single payer monopoly................Of course you found somebody who didn't like it (stop the presses LOL). There isn't a plan out there that's perfect and that everybody agrees with (a lot of conservatives out there don't like the Emanuel plan because it has health boards and significant oversight). But his plan has the best from both sides of the aisle and would work far better than some idiotic British model, IMO.
Post a Comment