IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags gop , republicans

Reply
Old 2nd December 2009, 07:49 PM   #241
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
No, I'm not kidding you at all, and yes, I do need to know the context. I'm not trying to dodge you. Can you give me a recap?
The context is the discussion of whether a "moderate" Republican congress is worth it or not.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2009, 07:50 PM   #242
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
Problem is, from the evidence we see, the stimulus wasn't cost-effective in that regard.
Damn right it wasn't. No one expected it to be. This wasn't some effort to get maximum efficiency from investment. It was a desperate effort to keep the bottom from falling out. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that we were going to lose money from it.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2009, 07:51 PM   #243
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
The context is the discussion of whether a "moderate" Republican congress is worth it or not.
Oh, c'mon, man, throw me a bone here.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2009, 07:53 PM   #244
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
Then maybe we shouldn't have rushed the stimulus.
I don't think you appreciate the situation at hand.

Look, I agree there's a lot that was wrong with it. And I was totally disgusted by the rush to lard it up with pork. It was shameful.

But in real terms, there was no choice but to steamroll it.

In any case, the artificial economic blip is really all anyone could expect, and despite all the high-falutin' rhetoric, it's all anyone really wanted or needed from it.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2009, 07:59 PM   #245
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Piggy
Damn right it wasn't. No one expected it to be. This wasn't some effort to get maximum efficiency from investment. It was a desperate effort to keep the bottom from falling out. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that we were going to lose money from it.
You say it was desperate, but I'm not convinced. The PR campaign was nothing but fear-mongering, and your supporting reasons descend from that.

Quote:
Oh, c'mon, man, throw me a bone here.
Well, from what I can distill, your position is that we need to embrace a wide range of Republicans who disagree on a significant number of things with each other, whatever that may be - fiscal conservatism, the need for a strong military, social conservative issues. In short, that Republicans need not have any core beliefs.

My position is that we need to change the status quo, because having a Republican plurality that doesn't stand for any principles is useless. In fact, it's worse than useless. It's a waste of the money people donate to the RNC.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2009, 08:04 PM   #246
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post

My position is that we need to change the status quo, because having a Republican plurality that doesn't stand for any principles is useless. In fact, it's worse than useless. It's a waste of the money people donate to the RNC.
Yeah, but did you read the questions? And eight out of ten?

Seriously, do you believe that this, or any, ideological purity test would be the most suitable way to do make Republicans stand for some principles?
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2009, 08:36 PM   #247
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
Well, from what I can distill, your position is that we need to embrace a wide range of Republicans who disagree on a significant number of things with each other, whatever that may be - fiscal conservatism, the need for a strong military, social conservative issues. In short, that Republicans need not have any core beliefs.

My position is that we need to change the status quo, because having a Republican plurality that doesn't stand for any principles is useless. In fact, it's worse than useless. It's a waste of the money people donate to the RNC.
Yeah, I think that's a fair assessment.

Your formula results in a "pure" GOP that can't get anything done.

My formula results in a pragmatic GOP that gets things done for its various constituents much of the time, not all of the time.

Take your pick.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2009, 09:24 PM   #248
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,183
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Seriously, do you believe that this, or any, ideological purity test would be the most suitable way to do make Republicans stand for some principles?
Worse, they really don't constitute a "purity" test. They are just a bunch of hot button issues that don't display a set of core values. It's just electioneering pap.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2009, 10:21 PM   #249
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Yeah, I think that's a fair assessment.

Your formula results in a "pure" GOP that can't get anything done.

My formula results in a pragmatic GOP that gets things done for its various constituents much of the time, not all of the time.

Take your pick.
You shouldn't claim that without actually identifying what things this pragmatic GOP gets done much of the time. Seriously, that looks so ridiculous compared against the backdrop of refusing to answer my question.

Originally Posted by tyr_13
Yeah, but did you read the questions? And eight out of ten?

Seriously, do you believe that this, or any, ideological purity test would be the most suitable way to do make Republicans stand for some principles?
The arbitrary number of agreement and the nature of some of the questions leave something to be desired, but I support some kind of purifying movement as a whole.

Originally Posted by SezMe
Worse, they really don't constitute a "purity" test. They are just a bunch of hot button issues that don't display a set of core values. It's just electioneering pap.
I wouldn't say all of it is.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2009, 10:28 PM   #250
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
You shouldn't claim that without actually identifying what things this pragmatic GOP gets done much of the time. Seriously, that looks so ridiculous compared against the backdrop of refusing to answer my question.
What question?

And to address the issue of a pragmatic GOP, just go back to the Eisenhower era.

Or you can look at Ragan's compromises with a Democratic congress. Or you can look at the Republican congress's compromises with Clinton. Or you can look Bush Sr's administration.

The latter is probably the best contemporary example.

Let me ask you this: Can you point to one single thing that a "pure" GOP has gotten done?

I thought not.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2009, 10:50 PM   #251
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Piggy
What question?
...now you're just being obtuse. You obviously remember what I'm talking about because you rephrase the same question near the bottom of your post, and in fact you answer it somewhat.

Originally Posted by Sporanox
What do you consider the Republican legislative accomplishments in the past Republican reign?
Originally Posted by Piggy
And to address the issue of a pragmatic GOP, just go back to the Eisenhower era.

Or you can look at Ragan's compromises with a Democratic congress. Or you can look at the Republican congress's compromises with Clinton. Or you can look Bush Sr's administration.

Let me ask you this: Can you point to one single thing that a "pure" GOP has gotten done?

I thought not.
You seem to think the word "compromise" would be left out of a "pure" GOP's vocabulary. This is not true. There is a give and take in all politics. Legislators have to work the backrooms. A GOP that refused to compromise on anything wouldn't just be pure, it would be suicidal.

As for your citations, can you give me one specific example? For instance, if you're talking about H.W. Bush's tax hike, that was done to balance the deficit. I don't consider that contradictory to the message of fiscal conservatism.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2009, 12:14 AM   #252
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,183
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
As for your citations, can you give me one specific example? For instance, if you're talking about H.W. Bush's tax hike, that was done to balance the deficit. I don't consider that contradictory to the message of fiscal conservatism.
But it cost him a second term in light of his "read my lips ..." campaign promise. A pragmatic GOP would have seen the tax hike in the light that you put on it, embraced it as necessary, and moved on.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2009, 09:25 AM   #253
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
Dispense with the ridiculous language. Why do we trust those darn Obama economists anyway, if they can't even get the unemployment window correct?

That given number of jobs saved or created was the number necessary for unemployment to be bent to the stimulus crafters' predictions.
This statement is so majestically wrong that it has a sort of awful grandeur to it.

Quote:
How many economists agree with you?
So far as am aware, all of them --- but if you can find me one economist who claims that a "depression" is in fact a sort of medieval siege weapon, or perhaps a variety of tropical fish, do please let me know.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2009, 09:32 AM   #254
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 10,816
Originally Posted by gtc View Post
Its an oddity of the American system that this is news. Candidates for most political parties around the world would have to agree to support the party platform. That doesn't mean its a good idea in this case, though.
Most countries around the world don't have only two parties that every opinion has to be shoehorned into.
Ryokan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2009, 10:08 AM   #255
Whiplash
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,443
Originally Posted by Dr Adequate View Post
This statement is so majestically wrong that it has a sort of awful grandeur to it.

If so, you can actually demonstrate that, quite easily, with some facts and evidence. Right? Or are you just going to proclaim it wrong in a clever manner and then walk away thinking you really got the better of him?
Whiplash is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2009, 10:38 AM   #256
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by Whiplash View Post
If so, you can actually demonstrate that, quite easily, with some facts and evidence. Right? Or are you just going to proclaim it wrong in a clever manner and then walk away thinking you really got the better of him?
I was planning on following the latter course ... still, since you ask ...

There are a number of things wrong with it, but the most glaring, I think, is the blunder to which I have already drawn your attention. Sporanox seems to believe that the proper function of economic policy should be --- no, more, that the declared goal of Obama's policy actually is --- to bend reality to fit the predictions of economists.

This is like saying that the proper function of a doctor is to ensure that the span of a patient's life fits the predictions made by an actuary.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2009, 01:30 PM   #257
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Dr Adequate View Post
I was planning on following the latter course ... still, since you ask ...

There are a number of things wrong with it, but the most glaring, I think, is the blunder to which I have already drawn your attention. Sporanox seems to believe that the proper function of economic policy should be --- no, more, that the declared goal of Obama's policy actually is --- to bend reality to fit the predictions of economists.

This is like saying that the proper function of a doctor is to ensure that the span of a patient's life fits the predictions made by an actuary.
Statements like this make me wonder why anyone bothered those stimulus economists to release a chart in the first place, or why anyone bothers with them altogether.

Originally Posted by SezMe
But it cost him a second term in light of his "read my lips ..." campaign promise. A pragmatic GOP would have seen the tax hike in the light that you put on it, embraced it as necessary, and moved on.
A pragmatic GOP is not one and the same with Piggy's, or other moderates', vision of the GOP, hence talking about compromise earlier.

ETA

In fact, you could argue that many in the current GOP are shams as they turned out partisan knee-jerk responses to a number of things in the 21st century. Any mention of 9/11 comes to mind, for me at least.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill

Last edited by Sporanox; 3rd December 2009 at 01:31 PM.
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2009, 01:34 PM   #258
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
I wonder how much influence the radio talkers really have. Rush didn't get his presidential pick, didn't screw up the Democratic Michigan primary, didn't get a win in NY23, etc. Probably the same assessment could be made of Hannity, Beck, etc.

How much sway do they really carry?

I don't know, but from the way that GOP Party Officials kowtow to Rush and company many high up in the GOP think they have a lot of influence.
The really problem I have with El Rusho and company (and you can throw in a lot of the Lefty Media Equivilents) is that ,in the words of a British Politician talking about the British Press Barons of the 1930's, they want power without responsiblity, the dream of the Harlot throughout the ages.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2009, 02:59 AM   #259
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
Statements like this make me wonder why anyone bothered those stimulus economists to release a chart in the first place, or why anyone bothers with them altogether.
Do you suffer from a similar puzzlement as to why actuaries exist?

Could you tell us, by the way, just whom you are describing by the bizarre phrase "stimulus economists"? Cheers.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2009, 02:58 PM   #260
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Dr Adequate View Post
Do you suffer from a similar puzzlement as to why actuaries exist?

Could you tell us, by the way, just whom you are describing by the bizarre phrase "stimulus economists"? Cheers.
Yawn. Keep fishing.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2009, 03:48 PM   #261
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
Yawn. Keep fishing.
If you have no answers, this fact could best be communicated by silence.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2009, 07:52 PM   #262
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Dr Adequate View Post
If you have no answers, this fact could best be communicated by silence.
You didn't really have a leg to stand on in the first place, which precedes this silly line of questioning.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill

Last edited by Sporanox; 4th December 2009 at 08:02 PM. Reason: grammar
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2009, 02:46 AM   #263
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
You didn't really have a leg to stand on in the first place ...
Ah, that would explain why you have found it impossible to justify your ridiculous argument, and why you have retreated from actual debate into mere declarations of victory. Which is not much of a substitute, but I guess it's all you've got ...

Last edited by Dr Adequate; 5th December 2009 at 02:48 AM.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2010, 05:34 PM   #264
stevea
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,064
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
I am sick and tired of this repeated false assertion. It is NOT true. Lieberman ran in a primary as a Democrat against another Democrat. He lost. Subsequently, he CHOSE of his own accord to leave the Democratic Party and run on a third party ticket. You can have all the opinions you want but you cannot rewrite reality.

I guess having your own reality is reserved for YOU, "SezMe".

The ONLY reason Lieberman had to run in a primary is that state party selected delegates gave Liebermans opponent a third of the votes,thus forcing a primary. No other incumbent Dem in 2006 was pushed into an optional primary. It was clear to everyone that Lieberman would have a difficult time winning the Dem Primary, which is why Lamont burned $16M of personal wealth - he assumed he would have a cake-walk in the general election w/ Lieberman out. They were certainly kicking Lieberman to the curb; even if you don't understand it.

I don't blame the Dems for rejecting Leiberman as too centrist, but reject they did.


Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
You have got to be kidding me. The most important issue on the table now is health care reform. Are you claiming the Dems have not made "any" compromise? Really?

Please specify two or more "unstable policies" and inform us as to how they are "unstable". Also, please enumerate the detrimental effects you cite and explain how these "unstable policies" lead to such effects.
HC was NEVER the most important issue on the table. Only 5% of ppl in a pre-Obama poll suggested it was the most important to them. The economy and war have always been higher on the list. And NO - there was virtually no Rep input to the HC bill; if you don't agree cite two pages of the 2500+ that were proposed by Reps.

Unstable policies are a dime a dozen
Income Taxes
Corporate taxes
Corporate Regulation
Estate Taxes
Education costs
Sex Education
Abortion
Stem Cell Research Funding
....

These issues get batted back & forth & and in odd directions every time there is a change of party in power. If you think these are non-issues you should try planning an estate or managing a small business when you have no idea is coming.

Here's a widely relevant example. Does it make any sense to contribute to a 401k now, since it's perhaps likely personal taxes later in retirement may be higher than today or is a Roth better ? Or will they end up taxing Roths in the future ?

A friend from University moved overseas to work on certain biological research. Should he move back now or is the funding going to be yanked again in 3 years ? ((In reality he'll probably never move back)).

No one can rationally plan with such uncertainty in policies.

Last edited by stevea; 25th January 2010 at 05:43 PM.
stevea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.