|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 9, 2009 13:26:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 9, 2009 16:34:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 9, 2009 17:47:50 GMT -8
It is hard for the Republicans to play when they are shut out of any negotiations. In that scenario, they have but one option and that is to make sure that the Democrats own anything that comes out. If that is seen as just wanting Obama to fail, then so be it. It is the Democrats own doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 9, 2009 20:08:01 GMT -8
It is hard for the Republicans to play when they are shut out of any negotiations. In that scenario, they have but one option and that is to make sure that the Democrats own anything that comes out. If that is seen as just wanting Obama to fail, then so be it. It is the Democrats own doing. Correct. There is really no alternative other than to all become liberal Democrats. I just love what the Dems are saying. Something about like . . . "Well, since you guys don't immediately accept and endorse everything we believe in, you are just outmoded and obstructionist." I.e., heads we win, tails you lose. Either join us and give up everything you believe in or we will. . . well, we will beat you over the head for having opinions and ideas of your own. Who do you think you are, anyway!AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 10, 2009 8:50:40 GMT -8
Sure hurts when the shoe is on the other foot doesn't it?
The Democrats HAVE tried to work with the Republicans. The problem is that the word compromise is absent from the vocabulary of the right wing. The President is still trying though.
I say enough is enough. I say that if you, the right, don't want to participate in the process but just obstruct, the heck with you. It would be better for the country if everyone worked together but the fact is we, the left, just don't need you to get things done. And it is your own fault.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 10, 2009 10:48:57 GMT -8
Sure hurts when the shoe is on the other foot doesn't it? The Democrats HAVE tried to work with the Republicans. The problem is that the word compromise is absent from the vocabulary of the right wing. The President is still trying though. I say enough is enough. I say that if you, the right, don't want to participate in the process but just obstruct, the heck with you. It would be better for the country if everyone worked together but the fact is we, the left, just don't need you to get things done. And it is your own fault. There is a lot of opposition within his won party. Obama is caught in a very difficult position within the Dems. If he does not have a "Government Option" he loses the very far left and if he tries to include that option he loses the "Blue Dogs". I will say again that this bill is done for this year at least and that if Obama is smart, a long shot, he will go after the health care issue one small piece at a time. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 10, 2009 10:52:26 GMT -8
I think that if it is done "one piece at a time", as you suggest, that special interests will competely derail it and we will be left with the status quo which only benefits those special interest groups.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 10, 2009 10:54:59 GMT -8
I think that if it is done "one piece at a time", as you suggest, that special interests will competely derail it and we will be left with the status quo which only benefits those special interest groups. That is a big risk, I agree. What is before us now has no chance. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 10, 2009 17:25:31 GMT -8
I'm sure I'll draw yet another of Pooh's whines about me not addressing the "issues", but there is a singular reason I can't stand Goldberg. He was a true believer as a self-proclaimed "radical" during the '60s and he's still a true believer. When I was in college, I couldn't stand the true believers. They engaged in ridiculous rhetoric that showed they knew nothing about Vietnam or its history and were led only by their stupid ideology (I'm writing about the left here, Pooh, in case you are a bit too dense to figure it out).
I went through a couple of Asian Studies classes and some Poli Sci seminars with a Vietnamese kid who had been sent to this country by his family to study about the time he started Middle School. In a political sociology class - which was taught by someone I'd describe as pretty far left - he showed a film about Tet (that would have been Spring '73). Well done, well balanced film that discussed the problems Tet created for Westmoreland, who was claiming the VC and NVA were basically defeated and we could see the light at the end of the tunnel along with showing film of the mass executions committed by the VC and NVA during the battle, particularly in Hue.
Needless to say, the true believers went nuts, proclaiming it to be one-sided and claiming that he should have shown a film about the "imperialistic" Americans and how the war was all about the phantom huge oil deposits off the coast of South Vietnam.
Goldberg is just like them. True believers always react to things in the same manner - claiming that anything showing something they don't believe is propagandistic bull$#!+. And when they decide that they can't buy into the ideology any longer, they don't move to the middle, they move to the other extreme because only the extremes allow them to believe in universal truisms that are, in fact, grounded in political opinion. Instead, they see it as a moralistic argument.
The last thing a true believer would ever admit is that there might be some gray in the world of politics or, for that matter, morals. They are correct, everyone who disagrees with them is wrong. And in Goldberg's world, radicals cannot moderate - heard him claim that on Beck this past week. Radicals stay radicals and if they decide to move to the left or right, it takes decades to do so.
Of course, what he has never understood is that "radicals" often are such for a rather short period of time and often posture as radicals for a variety of reasons, including getting laid. It's only the true believers who move and change as he claims all radicals do.
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 11, 2009 11:29:55 GMT -8
No need to comment since =Bob has pointed out his own inability to refrain from comment that has no meaning in the context of the issue at hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 11, 2009 12:10:26 GMT -8
No need to comment since =Bob has pointed out his own inability to refrain from comment that has no meaning in the context of the issue at hand. I comment as I see fit. Hard cheese if you don't like it. As far as I'm concerned, it's a better comment than stating "oh yeah, this one or that one is right on". =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 11, 2009 12:58:00 GMT -8
No need to comment since =Bob has pointed out his own inability to refrain from comment that has no meaning in the context of the issue at hand. I comment as I see fit. Hard cheese if you don't like it. As far as I'm concerned, it's a better comment than stating "oh yeah, this one or that one is right on". =Bob And if Bob and I didn't comment then you guys would be sitting in one big circle jerk. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 11, 2009 14:06:15 GMT -8
I comment as I see fit. Hard cheese if you don't like it. As far as I'm concerned, it's a better comment than stating "oh yeah, this one or that one is right on". =Bob And if Bob and I didn't comment then you guys would be sitting in one big circle jerk. ;D Which is mostly what they're doing anyway. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 11, 2009 14:11:19 GMT -8
Heh.
And the =Perfesser and Triple A make one small circle jerk.
Maybe they can make a you-tube video?
Is one right handed and the other left handed?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 11, 2009 15:03:46 GMT -8
I comment as I see fit. Hard cheese if you don't like it. As far as I'm concerned, it's a better comment than stating "oh yeah, this one or that one is right on". =Bob And if Bob and I didn't comment then you guys would be sitting in one big circle jerk. ;D This is sort of small. I went over and looked at the sight that AztecJoe suggested, but there are just too many people and too many topics. Fun reading, but there is soo much activity that you lose track of where you have posted something and never know if you have got anyone interesting in a point of view. You and =Bob need to drum up a couple more folks to bolster your forces.  What is a "circle jerk"? Is that a liberal with one foot nailed to the deck so he can only go in circles? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 12, 2009 8:23:44 GMT -8
And if Bob and I didn't comment then you guys would be sitting in one big circle jerk. ;D This is sort of small. I went over and looked at the sight that AztecJoe suggested, but there are just too many people and too many topics. Fun reading, but there is soo much activity that you lose track of where you have posted something and never know if you have got anyone interesting in a point of view. That's one of the main reasons I argued for Zip to keep a political forum. I've been on those big forums years ago and never much liked them for the reasons you offer above. At least with you guys, I know what I'm getting and know that if I piss you off, you aren't likely to come looking for me. With other forums, you never know who the people are or how stable they are. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 12, 2009 10:19:31 GMT -8
This is sort of small. I went over and looked at the sight that AztecJoe suggested, but there are just too many people and too many topics. Fun reading, but there is soo much activity that you lose track of where you have posted something and never know if you have got anyone interesting in a point of view. That's one of the main reasons I argued for Zip to keep a political forum. I've been on those big forums years ago and never much liked them for the reasons you offer above. At least with you guys, I know what I'm getting and know that if I piss you off, you aren't likely to come looking for me. With other forums, you never know who the people are or how stable they are. =Bob It is a lot more fun a talk to people you sort of know. That is a part of it. I would never worry about the threat from anyone. We are more exposed here because we kinda know each other. I just don't get Zip's position. He surely has the right to do what he wants and since he sort of inherited the exisiting membership rather than a lot more going over to William it is his rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 15, 2009 15:19:38 GMT -8
That's one of the main reasons I argued for Zip to keep a political forum. I've been on those big forums years ago and never much liked them for the reasons you offer above. At least with you guys, I know what I'm getting and know that if I piss you off, you aren't likely to come looking for me. With other forums, you never know who the people are or how stable they are. =Bob It is a lot more fun a talk to people you sort of know. That is a part of it. I would never worry about the threat from anyone. We are more exposed here because we kinda know each other. I just don't get Zip's position. He surely has the right to do what he wants and since he sort of inherited the exisiting membership rather than a lot more going over to William it is his rules. Agreed. I do think if Zip hadn't been sued he might have a bit different view of it. But he has also expressed to me a desire to not see the sort of knock down, drag outs that occur on political forums, even if it is between people who know each other. Being the O-T moderator is interesting because I have to make judgments about what is political as well as what might go political. Someone started an Arctic ice thread. I decided the best way to deal with it was to simply make a statement that as long as it was based upon the scientific disagreements, it was okay, but if politics were brought into it, I'd lock it down. Scientists disagree, sometimes in brutal fashion (see arguments between archaeologists as an example - they're likely to claim that the guy they're disagreeing with is not only wrong, but also slept with his mother). From what Zip has said, I think he may eventually allow a political forum, but it's not one I'd care to moderate. I like political forums because they are one of the bases of Internet anarchism. When the people arguing the other side are good, as some on here are, it keeps my mind sharp. =Bob |
|
