2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Right. Liberty, for instance, is a very liberal school. BYU is a liberal paradise. Baylor, Texas A&M and SMU are blue dots in the midst of a large red ocean. Bob Jones University is perhaps the most liberal of all.

True. Out of the thousands, a relative handful are conservative, with, of course, the vast vast majority being liberal to varying extremes.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

True. Out of the thousands, a relative handful are conservative, with, of course, the vast vast majority being liberal to varying extremes.

I see your martyr complex is acting up again!

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

I see your martyr complex is acting up again!

Someone should get him a cross so he can nail himself to it.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Did you maybe stop to think for a second that this is because conservatives don't believe the government should be in the business of providing solutions in the first place? You seem to see government programs as the solution to EVERYTHING, regardless of outcome, and the ones that do produce good outcomes as especially spectacular. I don't care if the government could have run Apple Computer better than Steve Jobs did and could have tripled their profits - I don't think the government ought to be in the business of running electronics companies, period. It sure feels like some would argue that if the government COULD do that, they SHOULD do that, since a more profitable Apple would be good for the "general welfare."

The government's mission should be to set a level playing field in terms of ensuring equal opportunity (not outcomes), protecting individuals' rights, and enforcing well understood groundrules for economic activity. After that, let the chips fall where they may.

Somewhere between a somewhat and very valid perspective.

Trick is that that means that conservatives will not be effective in 'running' the government...but will rather be effective as just the opposition party. The strength of their opposition is really what is in question here.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Someone should get him a cross so he can nail himself to it.

I'll donate the hammer if you donate the nails.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Right. Liberty, for instance, is a very liberal school. BYU is a liberal paradise. Baylor, Texas A&M and SMU are blue dots in the midst of a large red ocean. Bob Jones University is perhaps the most liberal of all.

Of course Teddy Kennedy spoke at Liberty University as I recall. But it was a long time ago, so I don't recall whether his speech was interrupted by those right wing hooligans or not.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

I see your martyr complex is acting up again!

I'm not sure how citing a pretty obvious fact has anything to do with anyone's martyr complex, other than maybe yours.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Sorry, but I disagree. This is a libertarian view with no basis in reality, and I'm a bit surprised to see it come out of you. The country needs everyone to succeed, not just the ones born into wealth or born with the intellect of Steve Jobs. What would you do when a national crisis ensued? Tell the people left behind "oh by the way, sorry we couldn't do anything to give you a leg up now would you mind going overseas and getting shot for us in the latest war? Thanks.".

When this country succeeds, it does so when everyone comes together. WWII. The Cold War. The Space Race. You name it. Adopt an "everybody for themselves" mantra and you'd better hope there's more haves than have nots, or the have nots are going to seize power (electorally of course) and start hunting bear. Then you delve into successive govts looking for retribution against the people out of power. Our current political discourse is tame. Back in the 30's, due to a "you're on your own" attitude in the Great Depression, horrific movements came into power with popular support in places like Italy (Fascists), Germany (Nazis) and Japan (Military govt). This is example A why libertarianism just doesn't work.

Let me guess, Obamacare is another example of "everyone coming together," right?

I absolutely disagree that we can't allow anyone to fail (i.e. that we have to ensure that everyone succeeds). Without possibility of failure, there is no risk taking and no innovation, and we will get destroyed in the world economy. The strength of our economy is in innovation, and allowing capital to flow freely to those innovators to build successful companies that create wealth for their investors, employees, and suppliers. If an investor is going to get the same rate of return (i.e. succeed) whether he puts his money into a company with a good idea or a company with a bad one, where's the incentive to do good due diligence and ensure that his capital goes to develop the good idea?

There will always be more have-nots than haves, and there have been for the last ~240 years in this country - you've definitely not convinced me that a little less government intervention will push us past some tipping point into anarchy or fascism.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Let me guess, Obamacare is another example of "everyone coming together," right?

I absolutely disagree that we can't allow anyone to fail (i.e. that we have to ensure that everyone succeeds). Without possibility of failure, there is no risk taking and no innovation, and we will get destroyed in the world economy. The strength of our economy is in innovation, and allowing capital to flow freely to those innovators to build successful companies that create wealth for their investors, employees, and suppliers. If an investor is going to get the same rate of return (i.e. succeed) whether he puts his money into a company with a good idea or a company with a bad one, where's the incentive to do good due diligence and ensure that his capital goes to develop the good idea?

There will always be more have-nots than haves, and there have been for the last ~240 years in this country - you've definitely not convinced me that a little less government intervention will push us past some tipping point into anarchy or fascism.

Two points. First, I'm not saving everyone has to succeed. I am saying most people have to or you're going to have social unrest on a massive scale. If the have-nots think they can make it into the have's, that's the American way. The major flaw of both libertarianism and conservatism is that it doesn't account for the notion that people might not react to things the same way a libertarian/conservative would. Case in point is the Iraq War. Dick Cheney would have greated the US invasion force as a liberator, so he thought the Iraqis would too and never considered that they wouldn't.

Now flip that towards a only the top 5% succeed scenario. A libertarian may say that if he's not in the top 5% he'll be resigned to his fate. Problem is the non-libertarians don't think the same way. If you try to enact something like this, those 95% are going to rebel, use the power of their #'s, get elected and unleash holy liberal hell on you. In essense that's what happened in the 30's and the country really hasn't looked back. So, cancel food stamps, Medicare, Social Security, college scholarships, etc and watch the fun begin. People will not take that sitting on their hands.

Secondly, you do realize the fastest growing major economy in the world is state planned, right? If investors are so concerned about unfettered free markets, what's up with China, a place where foreign companies can't even operate by themselves - they are govt ordered to partner up with a Chinese entity.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

I absolutely disagree that we can't allow anyone to fail (i.e. that we have to ensure that everyone succeeds).

I don't think anybody disagrees with this, where they disagree is what should happen when someone does fail. Where should the floor be? (And, for those that succeed, just how rich should their rewards be?)

 

[LynahFan]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Two points. First, I'm not saving everyone has to succeed.

Sure you did. "The country needs everyone to succeed," right there in black and white.

I am saying most people have to or you're going to have social unrest on a massive scale. If the have-nots think they can make it into the have's, that's the American way. The major flaw of both libertarianism and conservatism is that it doesn't account for the notion that people might not react to things the same way a libertarian/conservative would. Case in point is the Iraq War. Dick Cheney would have greated the US invasion force as a liberator, so he thought the Iraqis would too and never considered that they wouldn't.

Balderdash. Inability to empathize with someone else's point of view is neither a conservative nor liberal disease. Both sides, especially the hyperpartisans, are pretty terrible at it.

Now flip that towards a only the top 5% succeed scenario. A libertarian may say that if he's not in the top 5% he'll be resigned to his fate. Problem is the non-libertarians don't think the same way. If you try to enact something like this, those 95% are going to rebel, use the power of their #'s, get elected and unleash holy liberal hell on you. In essense that's what happened in the 30's and the country really hasn't looked back. So, cancel food stamps, Medicare, Social Security, college scholarships, etc and watch the fun begin. People will not take that sitting on their hands.

You're defining "success" far too narrowly. There are plenty of people who make less than 50K per year who would tell you that they are "successful." All they're asking for is a fair shake in life, not for the government to swoop in and make decisions for them - even if those decisions resulted in raising their salary to 60K. You'd claim that the 10K increase is the government doing good - and cannot fathom why anyone would resent such benevolent government interference. It's almost like you would expect those people to greet the government as conquering heroes, and are surprised when they don't... (see my point above about hyperpartisans!)

Secondly, you do realize the fastest growing major economy in the world is state planned, right? If investors are so concerned about unfettered free markets, what's up with China, a place where foreign companies can't even operate by themselves - they are govt ordered to partner up with a Chinese entity.

...which means they'll catch up with the US in terms of GDP per capita on, hmm, let's see, approximately the 15th of Never. The US is the world's most successful economy, bar none.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Because conservative (aka religious) schools likely would never invite a conflicting view to campus in the first place? Or is it a trick question?

How sure are you about that? Or are you just dealing in typical libtard stereotypes & prejudice again? Naturally, in your world "religious" is synonymous with closed minded and backward. A la Bob Jones or Liberty. But Georgetown and Notre Dame and Brandeis are also "religious" schools and I'd bet they allow conflicting points of view on campus all the time.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Of course Teddy Kennedy spoke at Liberty University as I recall. But it was a long time ago, so I don't recall whether his speech was interrupted by those right wing hooligans or not.

Was his topic the perils of drunken driving?

 

[pirate]

Was his topic the perils of drunken driving?

Bridge design.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Was his topic the perils of drunken driving?

The strange thing is that I think Teddy Kennedy actually had a pretty good relationship with guys like Jerry Falwell, and that was probably the reason for his speech. To me it shows that in a different time two individuals pretty far apart politically can still communicate, and actually have a working relationship. No more, it seems.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

I don't think anybody disagrees with this, where they disagree is what should happen when someone does fail. Where should the floor be? (And, for those that succeed, just how rich should their rewards be?)

Why would anyone want to limit the possible reward for doing an honest job really well if not out of pure envy those who've been succesful in life?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Why would anyone want to limit the possible reward for doing an honest job really well if not out of pure envy those who've been succesful in life?

Not intending to speak for Craig...although there are some looking to 'limit possible rewards', I don't think most want to do that either. And IMO they shouldn't. The discussion is around who pays how much. Personally I think its pretty appropriate now. In the end, this decision is tempered by the (and these are illustrative) point that basic expenditures of food, clothing, basic transport include somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% of the poor's income, 70% of middle class income, and 30% of the wealthy's income.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Lynah you're a bit all over the place, but let me hit the highlights:

1) I need to clarify about success. The country does need everyone to try to succeed. Not all will get there, nor should the gubmint ensure everyone succeeds. But it does have a big role in making sure everyone gets an opportunity. That's not going to happen as we don't live in a perfect world, and furthermore not everyone is going to take advantage of this largesse. However, the more successful the populace is in total, the stronger the country is.

2) Again, you're taking the view that everyone thinks like libertarians. One look at the electoral success of libertarian politicians ought to cure you of this thought. In fact a good many people feel the system is rigged against them in favor of insiders, be it corporate, etc. If you tell people its your problem if you can't pay for college, and its your problem if you can't pay for medical care, and its your problem if you couldn't save enough for retirement, so we're eliminating all these programs in the name of "giving you your freedoms back", these same people will kick your ideology and the pols practicing its' a ss so hard you'll have to unbutton your collar to take a dump. People don't care for libertarianism. At all. Don't take my word for it. Tell me any libertarians who've even been successful politically?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

The strange thing is that I think Teddy Kennedy actually had a pretty good relationship with guys like Jerry Falwell, and that was probably the reason for his speech. To me it shows that in a different time two individuals pretty far apart politically can still communicate, and actually have a working relationship. No more, it seems.

Before he remarried, when his life was totally out of control (walking around the family compound in Florida with his pants around his ankles asking young ladies if they wanted to "kiss it") we learned that Orrin Hatch of Utah was one of his closest Senate friends. Utah LDS elder and Boston Irish Catholic. Hatch was pretty public about his friend Ted needing to clean up his act or face death. By all accounts, Teddy was a charming guy, hard to dislike. But also a guy who drunkenly drove his car into the drink and left a young woman to drown in the back seat like a rat while he ran away. Then lied about it for the rest of his life.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

In what has to be a public relations gaffe of biblical proportions, the President will skip the Celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Gettysburg Address this month. He's sending the Secretary of the Interior instead.