Alright, I know this is late but I clearly don't have the time nor the desire to sit here everyday and debate politics with the strong leftist majority on this forum. You seem to be their Fonzy.... So let's dance, I'll cut the head off the snake so to say....
After this introduction I was hoping you'd write something decent but it turns out you did nothing more than eat your own tail.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
How about more rules that require bipartisan cooperation rather than less?
In an interview with Fox News that aired Friday night, Trump dismissed the “archaic” rules of the House and Senate — using that word four times — and suggested they needed to be streamlined for the good of the country.
A sampling:
“We don't have a lot of closers in politics, and I understand why: It's a very rough system. It's an archaic system.”
“You look at the rules of the Senate, even the rules of the House — but the rules of the Senate and some of the things you have to go through — it's really a bad thing for the country, in my opinion. They're archaic rules. And maybe at some point we're going to have to take those rules on, because, for the good of the nation, things are going to have to be different.”
“You can't go through a process like this. It's not fair. It forces you to make bad decisions. I mean, you're really forced into doing things that you would normally not do except for these archaic rules.”
And then Trump came out and just said it: He doesn't like the filibuster.
“I think, you know, the filibuster concept is not a good concept to start off with,” he said.
So there you go. Trump is frustrated with the pace of legislation after 100 days, and his answer is that he wants to change the rules.
Next week: "Why do we need Congress, really? Just let the President make the decisions."
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Alright, I know this is late but I clearly don't have the time nor the desire to sit here everyday and debate politics with the strong leftist majority on this forum. You seem to be their Fonzy.... So let's dance, I'll cut the head off the snake so to say.
Sure. I be like:
You be like:
Quote:
First of all I pretty much agree with you on most of the things you said about Regan, if you read what I posted I wasn't singing his praises, we were debating whether or not to use his government as the defined middle. The similarities between the Regan administration and the Obama administration are actually fairly close ( growing the government and increasing the debt/deficit).
Okay, so I win the Regan [sic] debate. Thank you for falling on your sword early.
Quote:
I know it's hard for you to resist taking a run at me and boxing me into what you think I think or believe, but I don't like Fox, Breitbart or especially infowars. I treat every issue separately.
You treat every issue separately, just with tropes torn from the pages of Fox, Breitbart, and Infowars. If you're not getting your information from those sources, you're getting them from secondary sources which have lifted their information from those primary sources. See, that's the thing about understanding information. There is this thing called media literacy, where you learn how to source information, understand the content, and the bias of the information. The conservative media doesn't even hide the fact they are manipulating information to forward their ideological agenda, that they are using disinformation to poison the well. Facts don't matter to them, and sadly, there a lot of people out there, like yourself, who fall for this stuff simply because they are too lazy to do any sort of fact checking.
If you really did look at issues separately you would discuss an issue and cite it appropriately. There's the problem. You come in with a shotgun approach, throw out a whole bunch of unrelated stuff, and provide zero support from any credible sources. This is well known obfuscation strategy. Inject as many in related subjects and hope your opponent will attempt to chase them all down and not effectively crush you on any one point, giving you some level of a moral victory.
Quote:
Call me crazy
You're crazy.
Quote:
but I don't see more government as a solution to really any issue anymore. Everything the government touches becomes inefficient, costly and bogged down by bureaucracy and bs justifications.
And everything big business touches ends up becoming corrupted and focused on nothing more than earning a dollar off the backs of the workers. See how easy it is to rely on vague useless narratives? See how ineffective they are?
The reality is that there are certain things that each should do, and then things they should not do. Business should focus on the things they are really good at. Stick to the areas where they have a core competency and focus on providing that product or service. When they try to branch out, more often than not, they screw up just like you say government does. See, the problem is that very few businesses can grow to the size they need to be to provide the massive number of services needed on a scale the size of government. When they try, they routinely fail. Businesses are great where they can operate in the bubble of limited oversight and not have to answer to anyone. That's the difference between the two.
Government is actually pretty good at what they do, when the do what they are charged to do. When government focuses on big ideas beyond those of the private sector, and implementing those programs, they do so in a very effective way. Government health care is vastly superior to that handled by the private sector. The military manages to do a pretty good at executing a massive responsibility. Social services and education are also massive programs that the government is pretty good at. And let's not forget Public Safety. Our good men and women in police and fire do a fantastic job. All of these are much better than anything that is provided by private interests.
The issue with government, and government services, is the required transparency that private interests do not have to deal with. That adds a huge level of complexity that big business is not prepared or equipped to deal with. There are rules government has to follow that business does not. We can see how Trump is dealing with the constraints of government. It isn't easy doing things where you have to represent the issues of everyone, and this is another weakness of business. They are only good at operating within their bubble and their focus.
Apples and oranges argument. I would say you have a very limited understanding of government and that hurts your perspective. But I will say that this issue is worthy of more discussion and exploration.
Quote:
Also, the middle class always pay all the taxes, that's not a partisan thing.
Really? It's not a partisan thing? Who keeps coming in and making all of these massive tax cuts with no way of paying for them? You can argue that Kennedy started the cutting, but his plan was responsible and didn't incur much debt as a result. It really started with Saint Reagan, and he added trillions at double digit interest, continued on with W. and is now falling to Trump to make things even worse.
Kennedy's tax cut added a modest 8% to the national debt, and that included pouring massive amounts of money into the space race. Reagan added 186% to the national debt during his time in office. W. added 101%. Obama, having to deal with the crashing economy that W. left him still only added 67% to the debt, and almost half of that came in the first two and half years of his eight in office as he cleaned up the Bush debacle.
This is not a bipartisan effort. Facts do not support your claim.
Quote:
Please define the "rich", it's got a bit muddled with the emergence of Bernie Saunders and anybody who receives a paycheck as being rich. It's a pretty stupid economic policy to over regulate and tax businesses then wonder why there are no jobs anymore.
This is a great question. It is different from person to person. Some will say the top 1%. Some will label it as a specific number. It varies. Slate did a good article on this.
Being an ex-government guy, who still deals with the poor a lot, I define being rich when someone earns more than 20 times the poverty line (FPL) and is able to maintain that standard. That's the big thing about being rich to me, being able to maintain your standard of living, even when things go sideways for you. Since the vast majority of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck they aren't rich.
I’m not certain what you point was here?
Quote:
As I stated earlier, do we have more taxes now and government controls, spending and entitlements then during Regans era? Think about it before you answer. It's pretty obvious. Regan and Kennedy both proved that cutting taxes leads to economic growth. Also does your link take into account inflation and the devalued dollar? Is it taking into account, State, property and payroll taxes? What about other taxes like alcohol, gas lottery ect. ect. Nice try though.
Reagan’s tax cuts did not spurn economic growth. Reagan’s massive spending programs fostered economic growth. When people have money, they will spend it. Reagan gave the economy a massive shot in the arm by engaging the Soviets in an arms race. When the defense industry in the United States is making money, everyone is going to see some money. This where Reagan’s grand idea of “trickledown economics” came in. He knew that if he pumped enough money into the arms manufactures that it would trickle into the economy. There were plenty of critics of the idea, even in his own administration. It was George H.W. Bush that classified “trickledown economics” as “voodoo economics” because he saw where the end game was going. The economy did take a nose dive when those military contracts ended, and H.W. was left holding the bag. Only under Clinton, and some responsible budgeting by Congress, did the economy start clicking again.
Quote:
LOL the media being neutral???? Do you actually believe that???? Of course you do. Where do you get your unbiased center spectrum news from? Don't keep it to yourself, please share it. LOL Liberals and facts BAHAHA! Just like there are 30 + genders and you can pay Woman less money for equal work then a Man. And you claim to be fairly conservative. What other Liberal facts or science do you have? HAHAHA
The bolded comment kind of destroys your own argument. When facts and science are things you laugh at, you’re past the point of no return. How tight is your tinfoil hat?
I get my center spectrum news from sources that follow real journalistic practices. You do know what those are? Those are the things that Fox, Breitbart, and Infowars don’t do. My sources include The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Economist, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, BBC, CBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, CSPAN, Time, Newsweek, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Foreign Policy, The Independent, The Boston Globe, and so on. I also tend to use government websites and a lot of journals where possible. It is nice having access to multiple reference libraries.
Now, the more pressing question on everyone’s lips is, where do you get your information? You rarely cite anything, so
Quote:
Journalism is very Liberal just like most post secondary subjects are also very Liberal leaning, other then the STEM fields where you have to learn skills that will actually apply to a job. 30% of Social scientists currently identify as openly Marxist. Antonio Gramsci and the "long march" after all right.
Where the #### did you did up that bull####? I did an actual search on that claim, and low and behold your post comes up as the #4. The other links were all specious at best. One was linked through Graham Hancock, an English version of Alex Jones, and the other two referenced a speaker from American Enterprise Institute who made the claim that 18% of academics harbor that bias. That number just happens to be the same as Hancock, which took 30 seconds to debunk. Here’s the actual study.
Again large military spending isn't a partisan issue. Obama spent large amounts of money on the military and bombed people. That's not a left or right thing, that's a reality of the American political theatre and the military industrial complex. I'm of the belief that governments should purposely be kept so small, that you can't have big money interests influence policy to such an extent. Also how much did communist Russia spend on defence and espionage? It's not a right wing thing. If you keep government small, there is no need for a giant military, that's pretty simple.
Quote:
I'd personally rather the government not be in charge of my insurance or retirement. It's just something else they will screw up or confiscate when the boomers all retire and need healthcare (it was always front end loaded). Insurance is always looking for ways to not pay out. It's nice to have but don't ever depend on it. I'd rather have more money and pay less taxes and have a savings account that I put money into, then handing it all over to the government to handle for me. Liberty is responsibility, that's why leftists want a Nanny state, they're lazy and paranoid.
You sure about that? You might want to talk to people who lost their shirts in the housing bubble and the resulting market crash. That money is gone, forever. People had to re-enter the workforce because of that gross mismanagement by the bankers. But for those of us with government managed retirement programs we weren’t affected. On healthcare, give it to the government. When I lived in Canada I would walk in, show my card, and get service. Down here I have to show proof of insurance, they call to verify coverage prior to treatment, then I have to fight with the insurance company for moths afterward to get them to pay the bill. I dare you to come down to the US and try living on any of the insurance plans down here and see how much you like it. The cost and the service is absolutely horrible. Again, government does big things like this much better.
Hey, and thanks for the laugh with “Liberty is responsibility, that's why leftists want a Nanny state, they're lazy and paranoid.” Which of us is wearing the tinfoil hat?
Quote:
Why would I want to go to Zimbabwe? Why don't you just move to China or Sweden since you hate freedom and individualism so much.
Our system is so gone, its beyond saving. The only place left for pure capitalists like you is places like Zimbabwe. Feel to book your one-way ticket any time you like. I’m certain that we could probably crowdsource it for you.
Quote:
The culture war started in the 60's with the baby boomers and all that free love BS rebelling against traditionalism. Now their kids have grown up and look at it, it's terrifying.
Yes, the culture war began in the 1960s with the hippies, the free love movement, and the Vietnam war. But it became weaponized with the introduction of the Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority and St. Reagan’s selling of the conservative soul to the evangelical right to get elected. Now we’re stuck with wedge issues that really don’t matter.
When I look at the next generation I’m not terrified. They have very different values than the Boomers, but they also have very different ways of looking at issues – a more inclusive and responsible way of dealing with issues. The only thing that terrifies me is knowing that the system is still in the hands of people with some twisted understanding of the world around us, and they may screw it up so bad that the next generation may not be able to repair the damage done by the former.
Liberal Fonzie – 24
Conservative Tinfoil Hat Wearing Urkel – 3
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 04-29-2017 at 09:10 AM.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Trump, he of cheating on at least two (and probably all three) wives, while proudly talking about how he stiffs workers and contractors, advocating loyalty day. Whoever is writing the script to this mess deserves a raise.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
edit: I love the take that this is a 'strong leftist forum"... Calgary a PC stronghold compared to the rest of Canada... it just so happens that Conservatives who are being honest with themselves see the damage that Trump is causing and that he actually taken a very, very cynical and dangerous path wrt to governing...He's making the US less democratic by fanning the flames of divisive wedge issues
like I said previously, I used to loathe David Frum.... but politics in the Trump era make him seem reasonable... and at least someone that thinks about things critically... that's how far right the needle has shifted.
<pssst i bet the response is an ad hominem .. or calling the media "Fake News"...>
Last edited by oldschoolcalgary; 04-29-2017 at 09:38 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to oldschoolcalgary For This Useful Post:
Could anyone imagine what that country would look like right now if there were not the legislative checks and balances? They're the only thing that will get this country through the next four years.
Getting off topic-ish but I actually do think this website has a slight left lean to it, if not pretty central. It's definitely not strong though. Arguably could be described as a centrist type website actually, as it's close. It's decent because you get a lot of people from both sides, I just think it sometimes tends to lean left.
If you read through the majority of comments on any of the political threads, most people seem to be left of center on their views. Not good or bad just my observation.
Getting off topic-ish but I actually do think this website has a slight left lean to it, if not pretty central. It's definitely not strong though. Arguably could be described as a centrist type website actually, as it's close. It's decent because you get a lot of people from both sides, I just think it sometimes tends to lean left.
If you read through the majority of comments on any of the political threads, most people seem to be left of center on their views. Not good or bad just my observation.
This website is reflective of Calgarys political leaning with slightly more support for odd ball parties(Alberta party, Early Nenshi support). In the federal, provincial and civic elections polls on this site generally reflect the final results for our region.
So the readership of this site is reflective not sure if that is true on the subset of active posters. I will say you better be willing to defend your position and site sources on either side
edit: I love the take that this is a 'strong leftist forum"... Calgary a PC stronghold compared to the rest of Canada... it just so happens that Conservatives who are being honest with themselves see the damage that Trump is causing and that he actually taken a very, very cynical and dangerous path wrt to governing...He's making the US less democratic by fanning the flames of divisive wedge issues
like I said previously, I used to loathe David Frum.... but politics in the Trump era make him seem reasonable... and at least someone that thinks about things critically... that's how far right the needle has shifted.
<pssst i bet the response is an ad hominem .. or calling the media "Fake News"...>
This forum is pretty far left for the most part. Anybody who tries to come in with what is considered a "conservative" opinion, get's flamed and lumped in as some Trump supporting tinfoil hat wearing infowarrior.
I've always maintained that Trump was going to be a disaster. I'm starting to wonder if he was a Democrat plant to implode the GOP from the inside. I know that sounds like "conspiracy theory" but he's been nothing but divisive since he started in politics.
I think both the Dems and the GOP are bad. People need to move away from this left right paradigm and what is essentially a two party system. I reserve the right to be critical of both sides of the aisle, you don't see a whole lot of that from the leftside, on this forum at least.
If Clinton had won, the country would have been likely just as divided. The outcome of the election was never in doubt, a divided populace.
I've kept the ad hominems to a minimum in comparison to the one's leveled against me. I've never called mainstream media "fake news", I just called it left leaning and clearly biased.
There is one good thing that has come out of the first 100 days of Trump and that is we are not sitting here analyzing the first 100 days of Hellary Clinton.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
There is one good thing that has come out of the first 100 days of Trump and that is we are not sitting here analyzing the first 100 days of Hellary Clinton.
This forum is pretty far left for the most part. Anybody who tries to come in with what is considered a "conservative" opinion, get's flamed and lumped in as some Trump supporting tinfoil hat wearing infowarrior.
I've always maintained that Trump was going to be a disaster. I'm starting to wonder if he was a Democrat plant to implode the GOP from the inside. I know that sounds like "conspiracy theory" but he's been nothing but divisive since he started in politics.
I think both the Dems and the GOP are bad. People need to move away from this left right paradigm and what is essentially a two party system. I reserve the right to be critical of both sides of the aisle, you don't see a whole lot of that from the leftside, on this forum at least.
If Clinton had won, the country would have been likely just as divided. The outcome of the election was never in doubt, a divided populace.
I've kept the ad hominems to a minimum in comparison to the one's leveled against me. I've never called mainstream media "fake news", I just called it left leaning and clearly biased.
i doubt that you'd find that to be the case in the Alberta Politics Thread, nor any thread on Federal politics.
I believe this forum skews left on social issues, but is quite conservative when it comes to economic policies...
I have no problem with an opposing opinion, so long as the poster backing it up at least provides some facts to back up positions...
The problem with Trump is the incredible hypocrisy that any objective viewer can see gets brushed off by the GOP base... its actually pretty stunning...Trump pushes hot button topics to inflame his base and after he gets into office, he completely back peddles on it... "oh, you took me literally?"
if Hillary did this the GOP would lose their minds...
No doubt the country would be divided if Hillary won... the GOP Base thinks she ran a pedophilia ring in the basement of a damn pizza parlor! Or that she murdered someone for Whitewater... the GOP has pushed divisive politics for decades only in the last couple of elections have they simply started flat out lying and with zero repercussions, why would they stop? Their base is too stupid to, you know, check facts...the bigger lie the more people believe it when it comes to the GOP base
... Trump is the natural evolution of that kind of disingenuous campaigning... Any one that thinks the GOP wasn't the main contributor to this kind of politics hasn't been watching.
.
.
Last edited by oldschoolcalgary; 04-29-2017 at 03:31 PM.
This forum is pretty far left for the most part. Anybody who tries to come in with what is considered a "conservative" opinion, get's flamed and lumped in as some Trump supporting tinfoil hat wearing infowarrior.
I've always maintained that Trump was going to be a disaster. I'm starting to wonder if he was a Democrat plant to implode the GOP from the inside. I know that sounds like "conspiracy theory" but he's been nothing but divisive since he started in politics.
I think both the Dems and the GOP are bad. People need to move away from this left right paradigm and what is essentially a two party system. I reserve the right to be critical of both sides of the aisle, you don't see a whole lot of that from the leftside, on this forum at least.
If Clinton had won, the country would have been likely just as divided. The outcome of the election was never in doubt, a divided populace.
I've kept the ad hominems to a minimum in comparison to the one's leveled against me. I've never called mainstream media "fake news", I just called it left leaning and clearly biased.
This forum is pretty far left for the most part. Anybody who tries to come in with what is considered a "conservative" opinion, get's flamed and lumped in as some Trump supporting tinfoil hat wearing infowarrior.
I've always maintained that Trump was going to be a disaster. I'm starting to wonder if he was a Democrat plant to implode the GOP from the inside. I know that sounds like "conspiracy theory" but he's been nothing but divisive since he started in politics.
I think both the Dems and the GOP are bad. People need to move away from this left right paradigm and what is essentially a two party system. I reserve the right to be critical of both sides of the aisle, you don't see a whole lot of that from the leftside, on this forum at least.
If Clinton had won, the country would have been likely just as divided. The outcome of the election was never in doubt, a divided populace.
I've kept the ad hominems to a minimum in comparison to the one's leveled against me. I've never called mainstream media "fake news", I just called it left leaning and clearly biased.
Have you been to the Canadian Federal Politics thread? It's literally the exact opposite. I always find it amusing on how different the two threads string along.
