Socialism Fails when it runs out of other peoples money. M Thatcher.

[Keith]

Guys,

Yes this is left, right, left........

But that said, I too love a good debate, and even more than that I deplore hypocracy.

Am I the only one who finds it ODD that the folks who want to outlaw abortion, the folks who want to limit sex education, limit birth control and outlaw Planned Parenthood.

Are the very ones to turn their back on these childeren once they are born!

How does someone develop a though process like that?

Jim, sorry mate but this is not debate. You all seem to argue from a preconceived and retrenched notion that you and your "side" are correct and all you manage to achieve is an escalation of personal abuse. That is not debating. (By you Jim I do not mean YOU particularly. If the cap fits and all that)

Everyone seems to quote from this or that 'expert, political commentator, politician' etc and base your entire arguments on those that match your rhetoric the closest. I am curious as to what YOU believe personally and why, not why some jumped up lickspittle on the TV has spouted something that sounds right to you and matches your political leanings on a station that you consider partisan to your 'cause'.

There are similarly retrenched citizens in the United Kingdom, but you have to remember it was mainly the working class here that abandoned Socialist Labour and supported Margaret Thatcher who stood slightly to the right of Gengis Khan, and it was the traditional Labour vote that switched to the current coalition to 'punish' Bliar and his brown nosed cohorts last year.

We do not have such heated political discussions such as this in the UK as it is pointless to try convince a friend or associate your political point of view especially if you know or suspect he has opposing views. That's how you lose friends and that is what is happening here. Make a comment by all means, and 'agree to disagree' if another fellow opposes your viewpoint, but at least consider & respect his point of view whichever part of the political spectrum he occupies. Let's face it, the media is much to blame for the misinformation which riles us, and as we know, to divide is to conquer.

We live in difficult times, and I believe they will get more difficult. If the infighting in the Western World doesn't stop and respect for each other disappears, we are done for, and it has already started.

We in the West are now considered to be weak by those who seek to manipulate us. Whether we are Left Right Purple or Teal is not important, what is important is that we stand together with respect for each other whatever our political hue so that the message is that we are human and fair and will treat others the same.

If the kind of abuse I have seen hurled at each other on this forum is indicative of our moral decline generally, then I believe we have some real soul searching to do and say not that "you are fucking wrong" but "how can we work together and put this right my friend"

We are all worried about the current young generation. Some role models we, (who should know much better) are...

(Soapbox put away for another day...)

 

[Bob Fechter]

Guys,

Yes this is left, right, left........

But that said, I too love a good debate, and even more than that I deplore hypocracy.

Am I the only one who finds it ODD that the folks who want to outlaw abortion, the folks who want to limit sex education, limit birth control and outlaw Planned Parenthood.

Are the very ones to turn their back on these childeren once they are born!

How does someone develop a though process like that?

Craik, you don't have the collateral to represent anyone to the right of Alger Hiss.

I have stated here that I have no problem with birth control. Abortion by pill, yes.

I don't pretend to think abortion will ever be abolished, but I believe it needs to be cut back tremendously. Those whose life is endangered, even rape victims.

I have, though, said that I don't want the government Left or Right taking over the parent's role of educating their children.

I also do not want to outlaw Planned Parenthood. But they should give every chance they possibly can to convince the mother to adopt out her child rather than abort it.

And most outrageously, what is your proof that Conservatives "turn their back on these childeren once they are born?" what a lot of Left Wing baloney.

Those are my views, believe it or not, Craik, they may not be the views of other Conservatives. They might be the views of some Democrats who haven't yet realized the Democratic Party has left them.

Still floating in the bowl I see.

 

[Jim Craik]

Here are just a few examples there are many.

Republicans Courageously Stand Against Poor Children

BY JAMELLE BOUIE | POSTED 05/24/2011 AT 05:03 PM
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes the GOP’s refusal to rest in its battle against food assistance for poor children:

House Republicans are proposing a cut in the WIC nutrition program that would force WIC to turn away 325,000 to 475,000 eligible low-income women and young children next year. This cut — part of the 2012 appropriations bill that Rep. Jack Kingston, chairman of the House agriculture appropriations subcommittee, unveiled today — would break a 15-year commitment by Administrations and Congresses of both parties to provide enough WIC funding to serve all eligible women, infants, and children who apply.

Republican Bill Would Trim Aid for Poor Children Who Are Ill or Disabled


House Republicans are drafting legislation that would abolish Federal cash payments for 847,000 poor children who are severely disabled or chronically ill. They would replace the payments with vouchers that could be spent on a more limited program of medical care.

The lawmakers said the proposal was part of the Republicans' overall effort to redesign the nation's welfare system and control costs. It would fundamentally alter the program, Supplemental Security Income for children, which provides cash grants of up to $446 a month for children with chronic illnesses and disabilities like mental retardation, cerebral palsy and spina bifida.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

My older sister worked in Yale New Haven Hospital in the 80's. Low income women would come in for abortions and be given birth control medication that would last for 3 months and that they could come back and renew at 3 months. Within the year, a very high precentage would be back for an abortion because they didn't return for the free birth control.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Here are just a few examples there are many.

Republicans Courageously Stand Against Poor Children

BY JAMELLE BOUIE | POSTED 05/24/2011 AT 05:03 PM
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes the GOP’s refusal to rest in its battle against food assistance for poor children:

House Republicans are proposing a cut in the WIC nutrition program that would force WIC to turn away 325,000 to 475,000 eligible low-income women and young children next year. This cut — part of the 2012 appropriations bill that Rep. Jack Kingston, chairman of the House agriculture appropriations subcommittee, unveiled today — would break a 15-year commitment by Administrations and Congresses of both parties to provide enough WIC funding to serve all eligible women, infants, and children who apply.

Republican Bill Would Trim Aid for Poor Children Who Are Ill or Disabled


House Republicans are drafting legislation that would abolish Federal cash payments for 847,000 poor children who are severely disabled or chronically ill. They would replace the payments with vouchers that could be spent on a more limited program of medical care.

The lawmakers said the proposal was part of the Republicans' overall effort to redesign the nation's welfare system and control costs. It would fundamentally alter the program, Supplemental Security Income for children, which provides cash grants of up to $446 a month for children with chronic illnesses and disabilities like mental retardation, cerebral palsy and spina bifida.

Alger Craik, more Marxist propaganda. Everyone who hasn't gone down the "Path" knows that the reason the government is so desperate to feed "starving" children is because the more the government finances food programs the more control they have over the entity they are financing.

We really need an intervention drive for you and your "Che" buddies.

Really, Alger Craik, you must begin questioning your brainwashers. That was the cool thing back in the day now, wasn't it?

The term for you and your ilk is "Useful Idiots." That's what the Soviet controllers called the American Communist Party back in the day.

When these useful idiots started thinking they would rule the Soviet States of America, the Soviets said, "Why would we trust someone who betrayed their country?"

Thats where you and the Over Educated Marxist Punks on this thread are today!

 

[Bob Fechter]

Aaaaaaaand, to whoever said earlier that Obama is a Centrist! Wow!

I have to salute a Left Wing Mainstream Media that has vetted the life of Bristol Palin far more extensively than the President of the United States and gotten away with it!

Simply astonishing.

 

[Nick]

Aaaaaaaand, to whoever said earlier that Obama is a Centrist! Wow!

Bob,

Compared to Arthur Scargill, Tony Benn and Jesus to name a few, one of which (in my opinion) spoke nonsense, one of which spoke some sense, and one of which spoke total sense, (if it helps it's Arthur that spoke nonsense).

Jeff is right Obama is very much a Centralist.

We do not have such heated political discussions such as this in the UK as it is pointless to try convince a friend or associate your political point of view especially if you know or suspect he has opposing views. That's how you lose friends and that is what is happening here.

Keith,

So true so why do I keep trying I seem to have some form of forum Tourette's syndrome, and seem to kid myself people with opposing views will listen to me and I can change those views because whilst they think they are right I know I am.

Maybe time for me to take some advice from Will Rogers

"When you know you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut"

 

[Mark]

I agree with Keith here, that our friends across the water, often appear not to know what debating is. Exchange views without personal name-calling for pete's sake guys. It is good that we differ. Much better that than being a world populated by Stepford Wives.

Once the name-calling becomes boring, what do we do? Bring out the guns and start shooting at each other?

Like Keith, I'd rather hear peoples own views expressed. Not just pasted BS once spouted fourth from self-serving media whores!

Express 'your' views without needing to have an 'experts' opinion to back you up. What's in your brain?

For example, here are two of my views, with nothing to back them up.

I don't believe in Global Warming
I don't believe in the Theory of Evolution

I could however quote 100's of experts that support my views and others could easily find as many contrary experts. I'll debate these things quite happily without feeling the need to attack anyone who thinks differently.

And wouldn't it be nice, just once in a while, to hear someone has changed their mind? Why do the Media savage a Politician if they do a 'U' Turn? What the hell is wrong with changing your mind? It's this entrenched mentallity that will ultimately send us all back into the stone-age far sooner than any global catastrophy they keep threatening us with.

Try ignoring the media for a while folks. They're full of S**T and it's all run by the illuminati anyway. LOL

 

[Nick]

And wouldn't it be nice, just once in a while, to hear someone has changed their mind? Why do the Media savage a Politician if they do a 'U' Turn? What the hell is wrong with changing your mind? It's this entrenched mentallity that will ultimately send us all back into the stone-age far sooner than any global catastrophy they keep threatening us with.

Mark,

Could not agree more.

 

[domtoni]

All,

I have had a similar pixxing match with a Phd. historian, educator (son of an entrepreneur, who brother ran the family business and both are now pensioned).

He told me that Obama was a centerist and gave a list of accomplishments of the Obama administration. Here are my comments to him:

Here is my view:
- Detroit saved - started by Bush, handed over to BHO who violated the law and gave the company's assets to the UAW rather than the bond holders (as required by law). I was in favour of the Detroit bailout.
- Wall Street Saved - OK, again started by Bush
- Most banks saved - Bush?
- Ben Ladin dead - from Bush's interrogation techniques that were severely criticized by the left. From inside knowledge, Panetta made the decision to take Bin Ladin out, not BHO (now a Belgian ex-special forces friend says that BHO didn't stop it so implicitly gets the credit)
- Libya - we didn't do much. Initiative taken by Sarkozy and Cameron - we came in on the special relationship with the UK, then handed over to NATO (who is the US). But why? It wasn't our business.
- Credit Card companies - Was this the new Dodd Frank finance bill? If so, it has restricted lending by small banks. If I financed anything on my PNC card, they would charge me 20%. Isn't this usuary?
- pre-existing conditions - all insurance companies have this clause here in Europe. I don't agree with that restriction. My take is the new health care law is bad legislation as it does not address the real problems of cost (increases cost), gives people an out to buy insurance only when they get sick, curtails insurance for the 70% of people who have it and will probably kill the US's lead in medicine. Repeal and replace with decent legislation. Most likely this bill will be declared unconstitutional.

Now, under BHO's watch:
- add $4T to the national debt
- spends over 40% of the budget on borrowed money
- government is now 45% of the private sector
- the military is restricted in fighting the war
- Guantanamo is still open (which I agree with)
- the boarder enforcement is a disaster
and we could go on

And this was his comment:

You're right...I was getting personal as to the would be GOP candidate...but really now, the GOP is even more intensely personal with regard to Obama every day...as I study my dear brother I believe I see the whole picture....he finds Obama personally weak, inexperienced, incompetent, un-exciting, un courageous, and frankly too skinny and smart and Black...people don't always say it in so many words...but study the GOP propaganda machine when they perceived Clinton as white trash from te south having the nerve to sit where the patrician Bush I sat! later John Kerry, a legitimate hero, swiftboated into a coward! now Obama simply deemed unworthy!

It's all personal, Dom. The unfortunate natrure of American democratic politics. Right now all I care about is BOTH parties trying to reach consensus. Aint going happen so long as there's an election coming. So fasten your seat belts, its going to be a bumpy 13 months

 

[Jeff Young]

Bailouts of banks and auto companies: traditional Repubican protection of large financial interests. The individual mandate on Obamacare: originally a Republican response to single payer nationalized system proposals, first put forth by Nixon and then by Gingrich in the 90s and then adopted by Romney and Pawlenty in Mass and Minn.

Top progressive tax rates under40%, and deficit reduction achieved via a cuts to new taxes ratio of 10:1 or so: Republican.

Yes, this President is a centrist when compared to Republicans of the 70s/80s/90s. Now, I agree in the US that perhaps the "median" center has moved to the right due to the rise of guys like Lonesome Nutjob. The fact is, about 20% of the population on the right has gone dead bat shit crazy, with their Palins and Bachmans and creationism and hate for gays, etc. And that has moved this country farther away from its traditional center over the last 15-20 year.

Dangerous. Similar to Germany in the late 20s in some ways.

In 2008, the moderates spoke. When faced with two mainstream candidates, they rejected a moderate Republican who clearly had to kowtow to the far right to get the nomination and elected Barack Obama.

2012 is shaping up for the far Christian right to finally get their way and nominate their candidate -- Perry, Palin or Bachman -- for President.

And then we will see what this country is really about.

 

[Graham]

Bailouts of banks and auto companies: traditional Repubican protection of large financial interests. The individual mandate on Obamacare: originally a Republican response to single payer nationalized system proposals, first put forth by Nixon and then by Gingrich in the 90s and then adopted by Romney and Pawlenty in Mass and Minn.

Top progressive tax rates under40%, and deficit reduction achieved via a cuts to new taxes ratio of 10:1 or so: Republican.

Yes, this President is a centrist when compared to Republicans of the 70s/80s/90s. Now, I agree in the US that perhaps the "median" center has moved to the right due to the rise of guys like Lonesome Nutjob. The fact is, about 20% of the population on the right has gone dead bat shit crazy, with their Palins and Bachmans and creationism and hate for gays, etc. And that has moved this country farther away from its traditional center over the last 15-20 year.

Dangerous. Similar to Germany in the late 20s in some ways.

In 2008, the moderates spoke. When faced with two mainstream candidates, they rejected a moderate Republican who clearly had to kowtow to the far right to get the nomination and elected Barack Obama.

2012 is shaping up for the far Christian right to finally get their way and nominate their candidate -- Perry, Palin or Bachman -- for President.

And then we will see what this country is really about.

Jeff,

I find it quite alarming that the US will never again have a non-practicing christian President voted in. And I do agree with you vis-a-vis the trend towards the more extreme right within the GOP. This I find alarming too...

 

[Terry Oxandale]

And wouldn't it be nice, just once in a while, to hear someone has changed their mind? Why do the Media savage a Politician if they do a 'U' Turn? What the hell is wrong with changing your mind? It's this entrenched mentallity that will ultimately send us all back into the stone-age far sooner than any global catastrophy they keep threatening us with.

2x...It's such a shame that, should one critically review one's own stand on an issue, see that perhaps that stand was flawed, due to reasonable evidence and rationale argument, that one should be rediculed for embracing a more responsible view. That one is "weak", flip-flops, and has no backbone. The hyperbole given to this situation has ruined many honorable men's reputation.

By God, I'm wrong, but even wronger to admit I'm wrong!

I truely do believe we are de-evolving.

 

[Jeff Young]

Bizarre isn't it? If you don't expressly claim fealty to a 2000 year old Jewish zombie (not my term, but I like it a lot), you have zero chance of election to the Presidency in the US.

Is this true in the UK as well? Are a candidate's religious affiliation and beliefs such a litmus test there as well?

Jeff,

I find it quite alarming that the US will never again have a non-practicing christian President voted in. And I do agree with you vis-a-vis the trend towards the more extreme right within the GOP. This I find alarming too...

 

[Keith]

Blair used to bring his sycophantic Christian convictions into many political conversations but it never rang true, at least to me, especially when you consider that he not only broke at least 6 of the 10 Commandments but Lay Down with The Cloven Hooved One (it is alleged) AND begat a git... (it is alleged)

The Devils Spawn Smokes Cannabis... (it is alleged)

Now, where are my knives?

PS I unreservedly apologise for the name calling above, it is unseemly and un British - it is alleged) :laugh:

 

[Graham]

Bizarre isn't it? If you don't expressly claim fealty to a 2000 year old Jewish zombie (not my term, but I like it a lot), you have zero chance of election to the Presidency in the US.

Is this true in the UK as well? Are a candidate's religious affiliation and beliefs such a litmus test there as well?

Jeff, in general the British populace couldn't give two shits as to whether the incumbent leader was religious or not (IMHO). As Keith has mentioned, Bliar did wear the badge when it suited him, as did Gordon (who sold all the gold?) Brown.

But generally as I say, nobody gives two poohs.

And I am all over that!!!!!

 

[Ron Earp]

Jeff, in general the British populace couldn't give two shits as to whether the incumbent leader was religious or not (IMHO)!

I suspect a good bit of your populace do give two shits, but that is just speculation on my part.

Here in the US though things are definitely different. Jeff is correct in that you need to swear fealty to the CJZ and, not only that, but your allegiance must be to the correct version and flavor of religion depending on a variety of political factors.

In my opinion it is sad that religion has so much to do with politics. As a fiscal conservative and a social liberal (regarding abortion, homosexuality) I don't feel that either party offers the ideology that I can wholly embrace.

 

[Graham]

I suspect a good bit of your populace do give two shits, but that is just speculation on my part.

Here in the US though things are definitely different. Jeff is correct in that you need to swear fealty to the CJZ and, not only that, but your allegiance must be to the correct version and flavor of religion depending on a variety of political factors.

In my opinion it is sad that religion has so much to do with politics. As a fiscal conservative and a social liberal (regarding abortion, homosexuality) I don't feel that either party offers the ideology that I can wholly embrace.

Ron,

I agree with you (oh, and happy birthday ).

I hold firm to the concept of the separation of church and state where possible. Not because I choose to villify people of faith. Far from it. I respect anyone and everyone, whether they have a faith or not. I simply don't believe that our laws and mores should be clouded by things that we simply can't prove.

As to your choice of political leaning, is it because both sides have headed so far from the middle ground that to simply choose one is pointless? Was this the case ten or fifteen years ago? Has the polarization between the camps really been as much as I think. I suspect that the answer is yes, but you are at the coalface so to speak, and I would value your opinion.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Bizarre isn't it? If you don't expressly claim fealty to a 2000 year old Jewish zombie (not my term, but I like it a lot), you have zero chance of election to the Presidency in the US.

Is this true in the UK as well? Are a candidate's religious affiliation and beliefs such a litmus test there as well?

Try saying that about Mohammed in a Muslim neighborhood and see how far that gets your liberal ass.

 

[Nick]

I suspect a good bit of your populace do give two shits, but that is just speculation on my part.

Ron,

I think you are right hence the reason Tony Blair waited until he was out of office before announcing this.

"Tony Blair announced his conversion to Catholicism yesterday after a controversial 25-year spiritual journey.

The former Prime Minister – previously a High Church Anglican – was welcomed into the faith by the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, after Communion on Friday.

During his time in office, Mr Blair had consistently denied any plan to convert to his wife Cherie's religion – but his desire to do so was no secret among his friends and advisers.

They say he only held off for political and personal reasons: there has never been a Catholic Prime Minister and many of Labour's most reforming policies, such as those covering gay marriages and stem cell research, were opposed by Catholics."