Ironic tag on vacation, subby?

John, Considering that the right has been dragging the center to the right for since Reagan we all thought a clever fellow like you would have noticed.

Concerned Liberal is concerned.

"The people with whom I work read The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times, and that's their world. Everybody around them agrees with them. They all lean right, and they think that's the middle."

The people i work with don't read. they listen to michael savage and rush limbaugh, and that's their world. Everybody around them agrees with them.

2wolves
John, Considering that the right has been dragging the center to the right for since Reagan we all thought a clever fellow like you would have noticed.

THIS. The right wing noise machine has been very successful at dragging the "center" of issues, at least in the media, to the right. Far right wing idealogues debate moderate to moderate left people on television and it's portrayed as roughly equivalent voices from the right and the left.

Actually they lean right, and think it's left.

i don't understand why the left-wing hate for stossel on the web.

he's liberal on many of the same issues as the left, and the libertarian attitude about personal freedom such as drug use and gay rights is shared by the kinds of people who use the internet a lot.

puzzling.

Can we try that again, in English.

Ah, the Evil Left. How else can we bamboozle reactionaries into voting for traitors?

.

NewportBarGuy: Can we try that again, in English.

John Stossel hangs out with people smarter than him.

albo: i don't understand why the left-wing hate for stossel on the web.

he's liberal on many of the same issues as the left, and the libertarian attitude about personal freedom such as drug use and gay rights is shared by the kinds of people who use the internet a lot.

puzzling.

Daily Kos said poke...so they poke.

albo: i don't understand why the left-wing hate for stossel on the web.

I mean, give me a break, amirite?

albo: i don't understand why the left-wing hate for stossel on the web.


I don't hate him for his politics. I hate him for his mustache.

albo: i don't understand why the left-wing hate for stossel on the web.

he's liberal on many of the same issues as the left, and the libertarian attitude about personal freedom such as drug use and gay rights is shared by the kinds of people who use the internet a lot.

puzzling.

I guess going on the Rush Limbaugh show defending Rush and his views is somehow liberal?

albo: i don't understand why the left-wing hate for stossel on the web.

It's in real life too. John Stossel is a douche, regardless of his party affiliation. He's smarmy and self entitled too.

patrick767: patrick767: The right wing noise machine has been very successful at dragging the "center" of issues, at least in the media, to the right. Far right wing idealogues debate moderate to moderate left people on television and it's portrayed as roughly equivalent voices from the right and the left.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that people that use a variation of "The _____ wing ______ machine" in expressing their viewpoint
usually have no original thoughts or anything interesting to say.

/same goes for "_______ wing idealogues"

Thread needs more of this (new window).

This from a man who once did a serious report on 20/20 in which he wondered if Snow White may have actually been a voodoo zombie.

That's not left, right or center. That's batshiat crazy.

great porn 'stache, douchebag.

2wolves: John, Considering that the right has been dragging the center to the right for since Reagan we all thought a clever fellow like you would have noticed.

lolwut

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. The center is still the center...if anything, things are more polarized on each side with moderates moving closer to the radicals on both sides.

satchel13
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that people that use a variation of "The _____ wing ______ machine" in expressing their viewpoint
usually have no original thoughts or anything interesting to say.

As opposed to your captivating addition to this thread.

Came here for the "Nuh-uh, you are!" See that it's here. Leaving.

Asa Phelps: The people i work with don't read. they listen to michael savage and rush limbaugh, and that's their world. Everybody around them agrees with them.

Best part is they probably call themselves 'conservatives.'

Calmamity: I don't hate him for his politics. I hate him for his mustache.

It is pretty hard to pull off a mustache anymore and not look like a child molester...

I sometimes wish Dr. D had whacked him a little harder back in '84.

albo: i don't understand why the left-wing hate for stossel on the web.

he's liberal on many of the same issues as the left, and the libertarian attitude about personal freedom such as drug use and gay rights is shared by the kinds of people who use the internet a lot.

puzzling.

Not caring about what people do in the privacy of their own homes, among consenting adults isn't a "Liberal" or "Conservative" issue. It's not being a damn Nosey Nellie.

"Social Conservatives" turned these into issues, because they don't like their neighbors, or what they do, and they are radicals who don't like the Constitution, because it can and should be used to guarantee social justice.

That Conservatives should be campaigning to preserve our rights, as opposed to codifying them to limit them shows how badly the GOP has fallen.

Stossel and education, I have some issues with. The concerns for education come from the idiotic way we administrate education in this country. We hand control over to laymen on school boards, fund and administrate them in the most inefficient manner, and make them responsible to folks who make demands, and then when they get EXACTLY what they ask for, they complain bitterly that isn't what they meant, and then demand something wildly different, and stew in anger that administrators and teachers should have read their minds.

Boils down to it: I don't care what you do in your home. Or who you do it with. It's none of my business. We do need free markets--and by free I mean a level playing field instead of this nested and skewed market that we have today that discourages competition.

Conservatives need to get our stories straight. We need to boot radicals who have no business in the party in the first place, and get back to actual ideals and positions, as opposed to this contradictory hodge podge, and boot the short sighted idiots who have gotten exactly what they've asked for, and now we're soaking in the half assed results that some of us warned them about, but the majority charged ahead with anyway, because they didn't bother to put the Republic ahead of their own wallets and short sighted policy concerns that seemed sexy.

I am not a Libertarian--and I think a lot of the platform that Libertarians celebrate is a recipe for disaster for the Republic. Which is part of the reason I AM a Republican.

But we need to put the Republic back into the platform. Conservatism should be about preserving the Republic--not about tax cuts and keeping homos out of our neighborhoods and marrying. Along the way, the Republic got lost in the idea of what the GOP should stand for, and it's time that Republicans found those ideals again.

slayer199
I don't know how you came to that conclusion. The center is still the center...if anything, things are more polarized on each side with moderates moving closer to the radicals on both sides.

Like the right and the left, the center shifts with time and geography. For example, the center in the United States is very different than what much of western Europe would consider the center.

Over time the center can shift. One way to push the center of a debate to the right is to convince people that a moderate point of view is actually very left wing. Note the right wing efforts over several decades to convince people that most news media is left wing. Millions of people have been convinced that blatantly partisan media like Fox News are "balanced". Meanwhile network journalists who've long believed that their most important role as a reporter is to be objective are dismissed as left wing hacks.

albo: i don't understand why the left-wing hate for stossel on the web.

he's liberal on many of the same issues as the left, and the libertarian attitude about personal freedom such as drug use and gay rights is shared by the kinds of people who use the internet a lot.

puzzling.

It's not puzzling at all. Did you even read that interview? Half of what he says is smarmy, false libertarian bullshiat. It's not reporting. It's not knowledge. It's an excuse for adults never to grow up.

And that's what's puzzling. How a seemingly large group of people- at least on the internet- can't seem to figure out how their policies would get them beheaded if they actually implemented them in full force. How a seemingly intelligent and well-read group of people can ignore basically all of American history to re-write the realities of liberty into some ultra-rightist, selfish child's version of ownership principles. How a group of people can't figure out why no one wants to listen to them.

hubiestubert:
Not caring about what people do in the privacy of their own homes, among consenting adults isn't a "Liberal" or "Conservative" issue. It's not being a damn Nosey Nellie.

"Social Conservatives" turned these into issues, because they don't like their neighbors, or what they do, and they are radicals who don't like the Constitution, because it can and should be used to guarantee social justice.

That Conservatives should be campaigning to preserve our rights, as opposed to codifying them to limit them shows how badly the GOP has fallen.

Stossel and education, I have some issues with. The concerns for education come from the idiotic way we administrate education in this country. We hand control over to laymen on school boards, fund and administrate them in the most inefficient manner, and make them responsible to folks who make demands, and then when they get EXACTLY what they ask for, they complain bitterly that isn't what they meant, and then demand something wildly different, and stew in anger that administrators and teachers should have read their minds.

Boils down to it: I don't care what you do in your home. Or who you do it with. It's none of my business. We do need free markets--and by free I mean a level playing field instead of this nested and skewed market that we have today that discourages competition.

Conservatives need to get our stories straight. We need to boot radicals who have no business in the party in the first place, and get back to actual ideals and positions, as opposed to this contradictory hodge podge, and boot the short sighted idiots who have gotten exactly what they've asked for, and now we're soaking in the half assed results that some of us warned them about, but the majority charged ahead with anyway, because they didn't bother to put the Republic ahead of their own wallets and short sighted policy concerns that seemed sexy.

I am not a Libertarian--and I think a lot of the platform that Libertarians celebrate is a recipe for disaster for the Republic. Which is part of the reason I AM a Republican.

But we need to put the Republic back into the platform. Conservatism should be about preserving the Republic--not about tax cuts and keeping homos out of our neighborhoods and marrying. Along the way, the Republic got lost in the idea of what the GOP should stand for, and it's time that Republicans found those ideals again.

I support this. I support you. I would take time out of my life, move to where you live, and campaign for you if you chose to run for high office. You are what conservatism needs to rediscover. Godspeed to you sir, Godspeed.

patrick767: satchel13
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that people that use a variation of "The _____ wing ______ machine" in expressing their viewpoint
usually have no original thoughts or anything interesting to say.

As opposed to your captivating addition to this thread.

I think captivating may be a bit strong. Poignant may be more appropriate. Either way...Yes, and thank you.

sloppy shoes: albo: i don't understand why the left-wing hate for stossel on the web.

he's liberal on many of the same issues as the left, and the libertarian attitude about personal freedom such as drug use and gay rights is shared by the kinds of people who use the internet a lot.

puzzling.

It's not puzzling at all. Did you even read that interview? Half of what he says is smarmy, false libertarian bullshiat. It's not reporting. It's not knowledge. It's an excuse for adults never to grow up.

And that's what's puzzling. How a seemingly large group of people- at least on the internet- can't seem to figure out how their policies would get them beheaded if they actually implemented them in full force. How a seemingly intelligent and well-read group of people can ignore basically all of American history to re-write the realities of liberty into some ultra-rightist, selfish child's version of ownership principles. How a group of people can't figure out why no one wants to listen to them.

Libertarians would love it if we lived in a perfect world where greed and corruption didn't exist. They love the pipe dream, and wish that it could be so--and many figure that if they just want it hard enough, and do away with protections to guarantee a free market, that people will magically fall into it.

The sad thing is, if we followed their recipe, it is a recipe for essentially plunging the nation into chaos that it won't be able to pull itself out of, because it will have gutted itself of any ability to defend itself from the predation of entities that are better organized and better funded than local communities. It is the path to a form of neo-feudalism. And that people fail to see the eventual result of these ideas is sad. They want to march out into the fields, like the Anti-Diggers, and claim their own spots of land, and defend them without any thought of any state beyond their hedge rows, and hope to heck that people will be intelligent enough, and cooperative enough to do the right thing, all the time, without influence or corruption.

It's a nice thought, but it's likewise as much of a fiction as the Worker's Paradise.

hubiestubert: I am not a Libertarian--and I think a lot of the platform that Libertarians celebrate is a recipe for disaster for the Republic.

I agree with most of what you said, however, I'd like further explination of this statement.

hubiestubert:
Libertarians would love it if we lived in a perfect world where greed and corruption didn't exist. They love the pipe dream, and wish that it could be so--and many figure that if they just want it hard enough, and do away with protections to guarantee a free market, that people will magically fall into it.

The sad thing is, if we followed their recipe, it is a recipe for essentially plunging the nation into chaos that it won't be able to pull itself out of, because it will have gutted itself of any ability to defend itself from the predation of entities that are better organized and better funded than local communities. It is the path to a form of neo-feudalism. And that people fail to see the eventual result of these ideas is sad. They want to march out into the fields, like the Anti-Diggers, and claim their own spots of land, and defend them without any thought of any state beyond their hedge rows, and hope to heck that people will be intelligent enough, and cooperative enough to do the right thing, all the time, without influence or corruption.

It's a nice thought, but it's likewise as much of a fiction as the Worker's Paradise.

It's not just greed and corruption, though. It's stupidity. Selfishness. Etc...

I mean, had AIG simply forced more regulation- private regulation- upon banks to get better information about their loans before they would insure them we could have drastically reduced the amount of moral hazard that helped fuel this situation- and it was moral hazard that was based in greed, corruption, and stupidity. But they didn't. Because there was arguably a lot of incentive for private employees to scam the greater good of a company. And since Americans- all Americans- rely upon the efficacy of the banking system- well we need better regulation. (And Stossel and Reason consistently lie- Bush did indeed cut the number of regulations- but he spent more not enforcing them).

And that's part of the problem- my biggest issue is that libertarians never look at the larger issues and problems. Everything is about 'you, me, him.' Well, it turns out there is an 'us, we, them.' Things like pollution, banking moral hazard, CEO greed, safety regulation, FDA regulation, drug regulation- these are problems that add up.

Drug regulation is almost the cornerstone example of libertarian failures- I support legalization of drugs, and certainly an end to the drug war as it is practiced now. But the reality is we can't let everybody do meth. They can argue till they are blue in the face about individual rights- but at the end of the day, month, year, century, we all have obligations and needs upon one another. The destruction meth can do to communities is enormous. Thus, any solution to legalize drugs must come with restrictions, re-hab clinics, and methods to deal with the social problems these drugs create. People forget about that. And I think it's because people have never really been subjected to thinking about everything a governing body must deal with.

And it's exactly how you describe with markets. And other problems. And that's just what consistently stumps me about libertarians- how they don't understand we are both individuals and part of a society. I just don't get it.

I'm an actual liberal, unlike the people of the NYT and the Post, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

Pro-tip: The American version of 'left' is actually quite right of center.

GAT_00: Pro-tip: The American version of 'left' is actually quite right of center.

Well, a better statement would be that left and right don't exist, or that at least you have to account for a social and economic axis.

One some areas, America is wildly 'liberal' compared to the rest of the world, but each individual issue tends to, in America, be identified with 'right' or 'left'. Like gun ownership and satire. Gun ownership would be identified as a 'right' issue, and satire a 'left' one. You quickly get into fun ridiculousness that way.

sloppy shoes: How a group of people can't figure out why no one wants to listen to them.

I would like to find out where he lives and open a pig farm next to his house. He would be crying like a little biatch to the city zoning clerk. Heck, he seems like the type of guy who would call the cops on you if you played your music to loud on a Friday night.

GAT_00: I'm an actual liberal, unlike the people of the NYT and the Post, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

Pro-tip: The American version of 'left' is actually quite right of center.

I agree your staunchest liberal in the US would be considered a centralist in most of Europe. In the US, you are branded as a socialist if you want universal health care. Universal health care is just the status quo in most progressive economies.

sloppy shoes: Drug regulation is almost the cornerstone example of libertarian failures- I support legalization of drugs, and certainly an end to the drug war as it is practiced now. But the reality is we can't let everybody do meth. They can argue till they are blue in the face about individual rights- but at the end of the day, month, year, century, we all have obligations and needs upon one another. The destruction meth can do to communities is enormous. Thus, any solution to legalize drugs must come with restrictions, re-hab clinics, and methods to deal with the social problems these drugs create. People forget about that. And I think it's because people have never really been subjected to thinking about everything a governing body must deal with.

I like this graph so much:


Once we figure out a reasonable estimate of the social costs and tax it, we can use the revenue for Pigovian subsidies on positive externalities. Problem solved.

mrshowrules:
I would like to find out where he lives and open a pig farm next to his house. He would be crying like a little biatch to the city zoning clerk. Heck, he seems like the type of guy who would call the cops on you if you played your music to loud on a Friday night.

He probably belongs to an HOA or a condo association. Ironically of course.

mrshowrules: I agree your staunchest liberal in the US would be considered a centralist in most of Europe. In the US, you are branded as a socialist if you want universal health care. Universal health care is just the status quo in most progressive economies.

But an American stating the American views on defamation would be considered an intense liberal.

And for many crimes the French don't use a jury trial-- I mean, you don't have a right to a jury trial. Depending on your views on jury trials, this makes them more or less conservative than us. I feel it makes them more conservative. They also don't allow cross-examination, which is definitely more power for the state and less for the individual.

Snarfangel:
I like this graph so much:


Once we figure out a reasonable estimate of the social costs and tax it, we can use the revenue for Pigovian subsidies on positive externalities. Problem solved.


I know. You post it in every thread. Yet, amazingly, it fails to provide any value for any of them. Why? Because we aren't that knowledgeable. Most issues are very complex- and solving necessary information problems to calculate a tax like that is probably impossible.

Furthermore, contrary to many economists popular beliefs- not everything is properly quantified in price. There are many other solutions that are necessary to solve problems- especially when we look at social development.

So yes, taxes are a solution. But they aren't the only solution. And posting that graph represents just another form of idealism that won't ever happen. Which is fine. Starting off from idealism and than working to a realistic solution is good. Necessary even. Too much pragmatism fails to protect things and is guilty of falling to the popular throws of power and democracy.

But you have yet to get the problem solved. You haven't even started. And that's the real problem.

You know how I know Stossell is full of shiat. Quite simple really.

Canada regulates the Canadadian banks quite tightly. If you add up all the Canadian banks that folded in the Great Depression and folded in the current financial collapse you get a total of zero.

Our banks are very competitive and very profitable. Because of our sensible banking regulation, we were the last country in the recession and might be the first ones out of it (hopefully). You know who ele likes are banks? The banks. We didn't have nationalize our banks. We didn't have to bail them out. We bought up $25 Billion in bad mortgages and the banks don't need any additional liquidity.

That is why Stossel is full of shiat.

Obdicut:
But an American stating the American views on defamation would be considered an intense liberal.

And for many crimes the French don't use a jury trial-- I mean, you don't have a right to a jury trial. Depending on your views on jury trials, this makes them more or less conservative than us. I feel it makes them more conservative. They also don't allow cross-examination, which is definitely more power for the state and less for the individual.

I think most issues are too complex- even for a left/right economic and social scale to quantify things. The reality is there are a variety of philosophical tugs on most issues- plus the political power ones as well.

I love when Americans complain about the leftist agenda that is invading America.

I can only assume the rest of the world that has real liberals looks at us and continues to assume that we are complete nutjobs.

Obdicut: mrshowrules: I agree your staunchest liberal in the US would be considered a centralist in most of Europe. In the US, you are branded as a socialist if you want universal health care. Universal health care is just the status quo in most progressive economies.

But an American stating the American views on defamation would be considered an intense liberal.

And for many crimes the French don't use a jury trial-- I mean, you don't have a right to a jury trial. Depending on your views on jury trials, this makes them more or less conservative than us. I feel it makes them more conservative. They also don't allow cross-examination, which is definitely more power for the state and less for the individual.

I don't think the left/right on issues make sense. For instance, privacy. Who owns this issue. Why does it have to be the left or the right. Canada has the strongest privacy regulations (possibly in the world). When I see US Government Dpartments sharing information with each other about citizens I am shocked. This would be illegal in Canada. I think this is a libertarian notion which is stronger in Canada. With private medical insurance, your personal medical history is all over the placed and used for all sorts of things. In Canada, only our doctor has a right to this and only for providing us better health care. Which concept is more libertarian/conservative/liberal? Regardless of your political leaning, everyone should agree that privacy is a good idea for everyone.

sloppy shoes: Snarfangel:
I like this graph so much:

Once we figure out a reasonable estimate of the social costs and tax it, we can use the revenue for Pigovian subsidies on positive externalities. Problem solved.

I know. You post it in every thread.

Not in every thread. Just in threads where people talk about negative externalities.

Yet, amazingly, it fails to provide any value for any of them. Why? Because we aren't that knowledgeable. Most issues are very complex- and solving necessary information problems to calculate a tax like that is probably impossible.

But that's the nice thing about it. We don't have to find out the exact amount of societal cost. We just have to figure out a tax that is closer to the real cost than our current amount. Science is continually improving, so our figures should continually close in on the correct value.

Furthermore, contrary to many economists popular beliefs- not everything is properly quantified in price. There are many other solutions that are necessary to solve problems- especially when we look at social development.

Then what do we measure them in? Because unless we have some units to measure what we are looking at, there is no way to give an objective view on whether something is an improvement. And you have to admit, governments are a lot more effective at collecting taxes than they are about using police power to enforce prohibition.

mrshowrules: Canada has the strongest privacy regulations (possibly in the world). When I see US Government Dpartments sharing information with each other about citizens I am shocked. This would be illegal in Canada. I think this is a libertarian notion which is stronger in Canada. With private medical insurance, your personal medical history is all over the placed and used for all sorts of things. In Canada, only our doctor has a right to this and only for providing us better health care. Which concept is more libertarian/conservative/liberal? Regardless of your political leaning, everyone should agree that privacy is a good idea for everyone.

That's the coolest thing I've heard about Canada, and I'm serious. I didn't know that and that's awesome. I'm a huge privacy advocate.

That's a very good point about the medical, data too, attacking one of the bugaboos about government control quite effectively.

Snarfangel:
But that's the nice thing about it. We don't have to find out the exact amount of societal cost. We just have to figure out a tax that is closer to the real cost than our current amount. Science is continually improving, so our figures should continually close in on the correct value.

When what do we measure them in? Because unless we have some units to measure what we are looking at, there is no way to give an objective view on whether something is an improvement. And you have to admit, governments are a lot more effective at collecting taxes than they are about using police power to enforce prohibition.

Maybe the real amount is the current amount. Or maybe it's worse. The problem is that some of these drugs could indeed be so destructive that you shouldn't be allowed to do them- the cost to society in the aggregate is too extreme. So we have taxes- extreme ones: prison, money, property, etc...

And yes- for things like marijuana, obviously, legalize it and tax it. But you have to go further- you have to provide rehab clinics, public awareness campaigns, community campaigns to help people learn the true costs of their behavior. And much more sometimes.

The reality is the government isn't just about banning something or legalizing it. And it has more powers than taxation. The government can help spur social movements. The government can design programs to bring community members together. But we don't- at least partially because we have so many in the electorate who don't understand how society works.

IT'S NOT JUST TAXES. YOU CAN'T SOLVE EVERYTHING WITH TAXES. You have to work harder than that.

P.S.

Sometimes there is no good way to objectively measure something. This is part of the problem when you become an economist, or any type of scientist that deals with complex issues. It's also part of being an adult.

Obdicut:

mrshowrules:

I didn't know that about Canada. But that is good to hear. Data has become to easily available in America. Privacy is taking a side step to business knowledge.

Snarfangel

Here is an excellent example- stolen from a Fark link- of a small and simple regulatory effort the government and businesses can use to help solve a problem.

Shop owner cuts litter in her village 40% by marking candy wrappers, bags of chips, and beverage containers with the names of the kids who buy themLink (new window)