Vet_Curm: That's not something I myself would use as a basis for an assertion.

Fortunately, I didn't ;)

Sloth_DC:

They do try to pretend that the "Socialist" part of "National Socialist Workers Party" doesn't *really* mean socialist.

The nazi imprisonned communists, intellectuals, artists, gipsies, homosexuals and jews. Sounds like a right-wing wet dream to me.

Oh, and I imagine the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is the embodiement of democratic ideals too.

Why do we have to keep reeducating right-wingers like that. Do they go to some stupid reprogramming camp?

BojanglesPaladin

Clavis
What about schools? They aren't wholly privatized, either.

Which is a shame. Federal funds (and the wasteful and mistaken regulation and rules that go with it) should have never been allowed into public schools. The sooner it is taken out, the better the state of education can be.


The problem isn't the the federal gov't giving money to the school system, it's that it uses it to extort the states into simply meeting "requirements" for the money, which they will do at any cost, including not actually educating the children past the point of passing the gov't's minimum standard.

IKilled007:

If the Founding Fathers could see what the Republicans and Democrats spend their time doing, they never would have secured the right to free speech.

Actually, they secured that right to free speech in the days of the duel, and thus, the hateful rhetoric would have a limit, that limit being dictated by honor.

If this were the case today, the extremists would kill each other off, one duel at a time, and we'd be left with people who actually want to solve problems debating those issues.

koan: The nazi imprisonned communists, intellectuals, artists, gipsies, homosexuals and jews.

But not socialists!

See, one thing the Nazis understood, that you seem to have forgotten, is that Stalinists were not socialists.

Bojangles
If the Democrats are to be a party that is FOR something, that the American populace could rally behind, what would that be?

Peace, prosperity, middle-class values. The usual.

But, unfortunately, to say that you are NOT in favor of ceasless war for the entire rest of our lives has become synonymous with "Bush-bashing." So that cannot meet your criteria.

As for long-term prosperity, I propose a return to debt-reduction instead of these insane spending programs AT THE SAME TIME as ridiculous tax-cuts. But again, common sense sounds like Bush-bashing.

Regular Americans want accountability and transparency in their government's policies. So there, more Bush-bashing for you. And they want clean air and water. Sorry, I did it again, didn't I?

I guess I'm just a farking freedom-hater.

Clever Neologism

Word.

Teaching to Tests. The worst thing that ever happened to our Educational System. And we got it directly from Federal funding.

One can draw a one-to-one relationship between the decline of education in our students and the rise of Federally mandated tests to ensure funding.

re: someone has nothing against state health service

2004-07-30 04:12:47 AM BojanglesPaladin

Just Ignorant
Don't be a Jack Ass.

She is now, after recieving MONTHS of perfectly fine care, doing just fine and I'm sure will be around for many more years.

Not the best care POSSIBLE meant that noone gave her the kind of personal incredibly attentive and focused attention that I feel my grandmother deserves. I'm sure you feel the same way. Sometimes the lunch order would be wrong or the thermostat would be set too low, and SOMETIMES the doctor didn't come around as often as we would like.

Don't try to put words in my mouth.

It's this simple:

ONE relative, elderly under FREE Healthcare. Dead before 60 from pneumonia because treatment was no longer cost effective for the state.

ONE relative now 89 and years to go after multiple heart attacks, MANY strokes and diabetes got all the treatment she needed without health insurance.

American Healthcare: 1
Socialized Medicine: -500

Easy enough to see where I'm coming from?

Clever Neologism:

The problem isn't the the federal gov't giving money to the school system, it's that it uses it to extort the states into simply meeting "requirements" for the money, which they will do at any cost, including not actually educating the children past the point of passing the gov't's minimum standard.

Which is going to happen as long as they give money to the school system. So, really, the problem *is* that the federal gov't is giving money to the school system. Far better to cut that part out of the federal budget, and lower federal taxes by the corresponding amount.

sorry. my blockquotes were eaten, but everything (except "re: someone has nothing against state health service") was part of the same quote

Mr_Fabulous

Don't you see my point? Even when you put forward positive, proactive agenda items, you instinctively relate it to what the Republicans are (or are not) doing.

The Democratic party REALLY needs to worry less about which team is scoring 'points' and more about what is best for the country. The idea that America is a zero-sum game is the worst thing going.

Sloth_DC
Please, gawd's sake, tell me you're not seriously trying to push the Fascism = left-wing meme, like some brain-dead Limbaugh listener. Are you?

If so, I'm going to be fairly disappointed in you.

Here, I'll give you an "out"...

"I was merely pointing out that Stalin and Hitler were similar in their totalitarian tactics, to the point where left/right ideology ceased to be meaningful."

You meant to say that. Right?

BojanglesPaladin
Clever Neologism
Sloth_DC

Good points, all of you.

I wonder if more states wouldn't already have statewide medical plans for its citizens if there weren't so many lobbyists floating around out there.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The important aspects of this discussion are the common goals we all have of having a healthy, well-educated America. How we get there is supposed to be a team effort, not "we try one strategy, and only the one strategy that wins the popularity contest!"

If only the neocon-artists and libtards could learn to work together...
I agree with you regarding the overemphasis on tests to meet funding requirements. My career in science ended before it began after the third or fourth Regents Science exam I had to take in HS. I hated those things.

Just out of curiosity, though -- doesn't that make "No Child Left Behind" a terrible program in every conceivable way?

It may interest the readers here to know that the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which is bad enough by itself as a piece of trade legislation, also has a component which would ban dietary supplements that people use in their personal healthcare. This legislation would go into affect in all countries in North and South America and would classify these supplements as drugs that only drug companies (read "Big Pharma") would be able to manufacture and distribute, which you can bet would be at Big Pharma's usual outrageous prices. People wouldn't even be able to grow the plants in their gardens used to make supplements so designated as "drugs".

So as far as I'm concerned, if the only the Democrats stand for is not being Republicans, that's good enough for me if this sort of Big Business Nazi cronyism is for what BushCo and the Repubtards stand.

And while I'm up on the soapbox, I recommend this political blog to anybody who is sick of or even ambivalent about BushCo's extremism and excesses.

Animatronik

I would agree that leaders are coached not to accept responsibility, but to me that just shows weakness.

Your example of Clinton is a good one.

Had Clinton just stepped up, admitted his guilt, taken responsibility, and pledged to never do it again, he would have been a better man, and a better President.

Instead, he lied to the American public, and I cannot tolerate a President who commits purgery, no matter what other good he has done.

Where are the days of the strong leader? The leader who was so damn strong he could admit his weakness and thus endear himself to the American public. The leader who took to heart the suggestions and responsibility for not only the strongest and wealthiest, but the weakest and poorest citizens.

I personally don't believe Bush has won the respect heaped on him by his followers. I believe that he was only responsible for being the guy in charge when the sh|t hit the fan. I think that people have rallied around him for all the wrong reasons. But I understand those reasons.

Bush was the leader when America desperately needed a leader, when we were attacked. Did he do anything heroic or notable? No. But he was the figurehead, and America needed to rally behind that figurehead, no matter how unsuitable to the task that figurehead turned out to be. America needed to stand up and support those things which stand for America, including its President.

However, beyond that, Bush has done nothing to garner or deserve the respect of the American people. He served his purpose. Unfortunately, we are now stuck with him because people are unwilling to stop believing in him.

Its as if losing faith in George Bush means losing faith in this nation.

And that, my friends, is the real tragedy.

Here's a thought:

Maybe the Democratic party would make positive statements more often if the immediate reaction from the Republican spin machine WASN'T to do everything it could to turn the Dems own words against them.

I mean, how does one have a positive message? One sees problems that the government might be able to fix. But what's one problem the Democrats could come out saying "We have a solution for it!" that the Republicans wouldn't immediately attempt to subvert or discredit?

You get yelled at every time you raise your hand, you stop raising your hand.

Sloth_DC

Clever Neologism:

The problem isn't the the federal gov't giving money to the school system, it's that it uses it to extort the states into simply meeting "requirements" for the money, which they will do at any cost, including not actually educating the children past the point of passing the gov't's minimum standard.

Which is going to happen as long as they give money to the school system. So, really, the problem *is* that the federal gov't is giving money to the school system. Far better to cut that part out of the federal budget, and lower federal taxes by the corresponding amount.


No, it won't. Not if you drop the federal requirements. You get money as long as you are spending money on schools. Let the local constituents worry about their education system.

The best solution would be that plus a voucher system. If the private sector can really do a better job educating kids than a governmental system, then the market will react accordingly.

Mr_Fabulous:

Please, gawd's sake, tell me you're not seriously trying to push the Fascism = left-wing meme, like some brain-dead Limbaugh listener. Are you?

I'm saying that Fascism is neither left- nor right-wing as understood in American politics. The political base for fascism drew from both the socialists (leftist) and the nationalists (rightist). Furthermore, it incorporated a State-controlled economy (leftist) dominated by the aristocratic elements (rightist). So it's absolutely meaningless to pretend that fascism fits the definition of left or right, much as it's meaningless to pretend that Stalinism neatly falls into either category. Like fascism, Stalinism combines elements of the left (State controlled economy) with traditional elements of the right (restrictions on personal freedom). But, then, a huge problem with politicial discourse is understanding the fuzzy edges of these labels, anyway. After all, a political conservative who believes in personal freedom and small government is the same thing as a classical liberal.

Clavis:

Just out of curiosity, though -- doesn't that make "No Child Left Behind" a terrible program in every conceivable way?

Pretty much, yep.

Clever Neologism:

The best solution would be that plus a voucher system. If the private sector can really do a better job educating kids than a governmental system, then the market will react accordingly.

just seems to me like vouchers would do a fair job bringing private schools down, rather than any other effect.

as somebody paying for both taxes towards public schools, and tuition towards private schools, i'm about as opposed to vouchers as one can get.

if i wanted Public School 2, electric boogaloo, i'd just ask the county to build a new school building.

Microbe

So, we should start to look for democrats to come forward and take RESPONSIBILITY for their own vote in favor of;
The Iraq war referendum.
No child left behind
The patriot act.
Income Tax Cuts for all wage earners
ETC...

You know when a Democrat does come forward and say "yes I voted for them, because I believed it was the right thing to do at the time, and given the same set of circumstances I would do it again." When you have some one w/ the balls to say that, then party may have a chance. They don't admit their own reponsibility today, they are to scared to take a possition because it maybe unpopular w/ other dems a little bit later...see partial list above above.

heap

as somebody paying for both taxes towards public schools, and tuition towards private schools, i'm about as opposed to vouchers as one can get.

That makes absolutely no sense. Vouchers would mean the money you spend on public schooling gets transferred to the private school your kids go to. Absolutely nothing changes except you have to spend less.

Sloth_DC

the 'socialist' part of the of the nazi name was nothing but a marketing tactic - you only have to look at the political climate in germany at the time to understand why it was done

Clavis

Here's a thought:

Maybe the Democratic party would make positive statements more often if the immediate reaction from the Republican spin machine WASN'T to do everything it could to turn the Dems own words against them.


Democrats do the same thing. Why does it work for the Republicans and not the Democrats?


I mean, how does one have a positive message? One sees problems that the government might be able to fix. But what's one problem the Democrats could come out saying "We have a solution for it!" that the Republicans wouldn't immediately attempt to subvert or discredit?


Again, the Democrats do the same thing. The problem is that the Republican party knows how to manipulate emotive things better than the Democrats. Democrats may win with logic or actually being benevolent, sincere, or beneficial. But as long as the Republicans are better at the emotive parts, the populace will follow them into doing the shiatty things they do, because they *think* they are being benevolent, sincere, and beneficial. Do you actually think they gave a shiat about Schaivo or Iraqi freedom?

Democrats are of the opinion the public actually thinks logically about things and researches everything they buy, think, and do. Most of admittedly short life has given me so much evidence to the contrary I find that position farcical. Any marketing, sales, or client relations person (you know, the people who actually worry about and manipulate people's perception) will laugh at that.

2005-07-26 04:57:20 PM BojanglesPaladin
Mr_Fabulous
Don't you see my point? Even when you put forward positive, proactive agenda items, you instinctively relate it to what the Republicans are (or are not) doing.

Er...I think you missed the fact that I was doing this for comedic effect. Playfully "beating them to the punch," as it were. Oh, never mind.

The Democratic party REALLY needs to worry less about which team is scoring 'points' and more about what is best for the country. The idea that America is a zero-sum game is the worst thing going.

...and that was pretty much the sum total of my point throughout most of this thread. But I'm not blaming you (or anyone) for not reading this whole farker. It's big.

KingOfTheFrogs:

That makes absolutely no sense. Vouchers would mean the money you spend on public schooling gets transferred to the private school your kids go to. Absolutely nothing changes except you have to spend less.

absolutely nothing, you say?

there's a reason these kids are going to private school.

half of it is the educators themselves.
half of it is the fellow students.

as is, a parent has to make a concerted effort to get their kids into these schools. these people work their asses off to do right by their kids, and are dramatically more involved in their lives than any other cross section i've found....resulting in damn good kids.

when it's just a matter of 'sign that piece of paper, and johnny will go to private school' ... you've just shat on one half of the advantage of private schools.

heap

Clever Neologism:

The best solution would be that plus a voucher system. If the private sector can really do a better job educating kids than a governmental system, then the market will react accordingly.

just seems to me like vouchers would do a fair job bringing private schools down, rather than any other effect.


How so?


as somebody paying for both taxes towards public schools, and tuition towards private schools, i'm about as opposed to vouchers as one can get.


Then that would help you, no? You pay less for school, get the use out of the taxes you pay, etc.


if i wanted Public School 2, electric boogaloo, i'd just ask the county to build a new school building.


The reason the government is opposed to providing the vouchers is that they can't manipulate the schools through extortions with them. Not being a public entity, they are not beholden to following state guidelines at all. They don't have to pass state exams, state quotas, or follow state curriculum. With vouchers, either you (as a private citizen) receive them or don't based upon your child's attendence to public school.

Clever Neologism: How so?

see above.

Then that would help you, no?

if my bank account were the only issue, sure. i happen to think the kids' education gets top billing on this one, tho.

he reason the government is opposed to providing the vouchers is that they can't manipulate the schools through extortions with them.

and when government checks start piling into these schools, that'll stay the same........ right?

again, if i wanted public school part 2, i'd ask for it.

2005-07-26 05:13:53 PM Sloth_DC
Mr_Fabulous:
I'm saying that Fascism is neither left- nor right-wing as understood...blah blah blah

OK, fine. But just so you know, there are people out there who genuinely believe that Fascism = left-wing because "Nazi" was an acronym with the word "Socialist" in it (as 21-7-b correctly points out was done for Orwellian reasons).

You don't want people to think you're one of them. Trust me.

Democrats are of the opinion the public actually thinks logically about things and researches everything they buy, think, and do. Most of admittedly short life has given me so much evidence to the contrary I find that position farcical. Any marketing, sales, or client relations person (you know, the people who actually worry about and manipulate people's perception) will laugh at that.

Actually, the ideal situation is when you have a genuine, unique benefit and an easily stated, supportable point of differentiation to work with. Then you pay it off with the emotive rewards till the cows come home.

But yeah, the situation is rarely ideal.

/marketing guy

I never knew the Republicans and Democrats had so many party seals.

Especially ones with pictures that have nothing to do with anything.

damitjim

So German shareholders of a Swedish automobile plant selling cars in Brazil are part of the American Economic Powerhouse precisely how?

heap

if my bank account were the only issue, sure. i happen to think the kids' education gets top billing on this one, tho.

he reason the government is opposed to providing the vouchers is that they can't manipulate the schools through extortions with them.

and when government checks start piling into these schools, that'll stay the same........ right?


Um... that's what I am saying. The schools are getting no more and no less money. Hell, they could raise tuition after that, more stuff for your kids!

From the post above:


as is, a parent has to make a concerted effort to get their kids into these schools. these people work their asses off to do right by their kids, and are dramatically more involved in their lives than any other cross section i've found....resulting in damn good kids.

when it's just a matter of 'sign that piece of paper, and johnny will go to private school' ... you've just shat on one half of the advantage of private schools.


So are you saying selectivity (what some would call elitism) is the magic pixie dust that makes private school better? I happen to agree, but providing vouchers doesn't change that. They still have the right to refuse any student, to require aptitude tests for entry, and unilaterally expel any student they wish.

Smart private schools will not admit nor keep students who lower the perceived value to their other customers. Money grubbing schools who don't care about those being educated and families will devolve, just as they should.

/went to a private school

Reminder: politicians are our employees, not our leaders.

Atario wins the thread.

Death_Poot

"2005-07-26 09:49:18 AM Jesus 2.0


In case you're confused about what the Democrats stand for:

They're the ones who care about Americans as much as the Republicans pretend to care about Iraqis."

Tell that to anyone who makes over $50,000/yr. According to some, they are the "winners of life's lottery"


I do make over $50,000 per year, dumbass. And oh yeah, I've got it oh-so-hard compared to those lucky duckies on welfare.

Moron.

Yeahhhhhh, Democrats! Go Team! Destroy Republicans!

This is just a cycle. A cycle with a definite and logical progression, and one which the republicans went through in the 20th Century.

At first, the party is crushed, politically, as the republicans were by ol' Frank Roosevelt, and as the democrats were from Reagan through Bush II. Initially, the party radicals are in charge and keep insisting that if they can just further radicalize the party, they will win again. They were wrong in this judgement then, and they are wrong now.

After a time, the real moderates, not faux moderates, move to the head of the party. They are "moderates" *solely* because they vote with the majority party, not for any deeply held convictions. But by voting against their own party, they get largesse from the majority. They use this largesse to pry power from the radicals. And soon dominate the minority party. They are comfortable as the "loyal opposition".

Ironically, by throwing in with the majority, they also allow the majority to marginalize their own radicals. They don't need their own radical votes to win, they have crossover votes. This makes both parties more moderate. And this status quo lasts for a long time.

Finally, the majority party begins is slow, inexorable decline. At first, the minority party remains powerless, and only when the majority party's radicals ascend to power, does the minority party start to regain political strength. The power blocs of the majority party also decline, but are not replaced with new power blocs, because losing political clout is the last gasp of a special interest.

By this time, the minority party has evolved a whole new agenda for the country. By being the minority, they have lost a lot of arrogance, and have reconnected with the voters. They have all sorts of new ideas to put forward. Popular ideas that win them votes. Not just a recycled advertising campaign, but substantial changes that the voters want that will most benefit the voters. And the cycle begins anew by their crushing the majority party politically.

All these posts, and nobody yet mentioned the obvious quote:

"I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat."
-- Will Rogers

/How soon we forget the classics.

mindbuzz

Yeahhhhhh, Democrats! Go Team! Destroy Republicans! I got nuthin!

Fixed that for ya dude. No charge.

This thread has turned into a big right-wing wank fest and all the usual suspects are here. I know you guys love you some Fake news and all. Just thought you should know that, with a few exceptions, you sound like some real jackasses.

Love,

sonnyboy11

no commentary necessary...the headline says it all....

" We're for BABY KILLIN' "

LMAO

Thread stats at the 1000 post mark:

DasWiggy 65
Sloth_DC (TF) 57
kevin5lynn 40
tarrant84 (TF) 33
cargrrl82 (TF) 29
21-7-b (TF) 26
smeegle (TF) 23
beerbaron 23
Colgate 22
BojanglesPaladin 21
ZipBeep 16
equusdc 16
Haizum 16
slobarnuts (TF) 16
Animatronik 16
GodsTumor 14
Mr_Fabulous 13
cot 13
GWLush 13
Clavis (TF) 13
Dozhdbog 10
Vet_Curm 10
swahnhennessy 10
Abagadro (TF) 10
Toker-Ace 10
peepee mcpoop 10
Complete Stats

BillCosby, what, exactly, is a "Local NRA"? There's no such beast. Your continued repeating of "local NRAs" is the equivalent of somebody talking about "the local Madison Square Gardens". There can be only one. Regardless, McCain has shown his stripes, and they are the stripes of a gun grabber. He has the same chance of winning the Republican Presidential nomination that he has of becoming a world-famous child actor at the age of 60...There's no way in hell it's going to happen.

"If not, then why did Bush(41) promote Wilson from Charge d'Affaires in Baghdad to Ambassador to Gabon if he was not pleased with his performance in Baghdad?"

Is appointment to Gabon supposed to be some kind of ambassadorial plum? I'd read his appointment to Gabon as being Bush 41's way of saying "sit down, shut up, and keep out of anything even REMOTELY important." Wouldn't you? Or do you have some overwhelming desire to sample Gabonese culture?

21-7-b sez: "the 'socialist' part of the of the nazi name was nothing but a marketing tactic"

You NEED to do some reading. Read up on the SA, and why they were called "Beefsteak Nazis". Also, read up on the entire idea of Lebensraum (which drove the Nazi conquests), and why Germany needed all of that plundered "living space", if not to promote their socialist ideals.

Except for the whole "World War II and Holocaust" thing, Nazis are pretty progressive, even by today's standards. Of course, considering how the progressives want to deal with us "Ordinary, Decent Americans", maybe the Holocaust thing isn't as much of an issue with them as it should be...