Comments Posted By Still Liberal
Displaying 41 To 50 Of 99 Comments
THE INCREDIBLY STUPID THOUGHTS OF DEEPAK CHOPRA
Thank you, Rick and thank you commenters. I was beginning to think that I was alone is seeing Shallowpak Chopra as a blithering idiot incapable of a coherent thought. His writings only bring to mind Deep Thoughts:
"Better not take a dog on a space shuttle, because if he sticks his head out when you're coming home, he might burn up." SNL Character Jack Handy
The final word on Deepak Chopra comes fittingly from a cartoon:
"What a maroon!" Philosopher Bugs Bunny
Comment Posted By still liberal On 2.12.2008 @ 20:31
ARE THE RIGHTROOTS MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN REPUBLICAN?
Bob C, I am agreeing with you so much it scary! A Federal Dept. of Education to me is unnecessary, let alone going to block grants. Education is a local and state concern only. Score one for using the Constitution; education is not a federal responsibility in my read of the document.
I also agree with legal immigration as the only path to living long term in the U.S.A. The fastest way to deal with this problem is to have the government confiscate the businesses found hiring illegals and then sell the property at auction to finance border security and the return of illegal immigrants. Agreed? It is a Constitutionally allowed remedy to criminal behavior. And illegals will come as long as work is available.
Never thought I would live long enough to say this, but your point on media bias is understandable. The major media do slant their stories, frequently just as you stated. And the Constitution is a great document to base the level of and targets of federal spending. But be sure to read the Federalist papers to understand the Founders' attitudes regarding the docuemnt and the inevitable change they knew was coming in American society and the methods of responding to a world very different than the agrarian, shopkeeper 18th Century they lived in.
This place may turn me conservative yet! And thanks for the thoughtful response, Bob C.
Comment Posted By still liberal On 28.11.2008 @ 14:50
Bob C, I'm late back to the party but your response is a good one. Of course I would still argue that the government and ALL of its spending does not occur in a vacuum and shuting down agencies and projects is not easy. Conservatives have tried and failed to downsize government at least since Reagan, and likely before. If it could be done, it would be done by now.
The complexity of society is too great to operate w/o oversight and spending in many areas. But I agree that a lot of money is spent that need not be spent (do I lose my liberal card to that thought?). Its too bad that all Americans cannot come to some consensus of some method to lessen spending by the federal government.
As SaraforAmerica.com put it, "GET RID OF THE WASTE, no matter the whining and gnashing of teeth." Of course the pragmatic problem becomes, who gets to define waste? I may think manned space exploration is "waste" and you may think TANF is "waste". Again, there is no method for building consensus on what waste and appropriate spending is. Now, the political winners decide and the system operates in a way that prior winners keep their goodies even when the opposition takes over. If it takes a Constitutional amendment, then let's all work together to have every dollar, every program and every federal agency have their budget face a meaningful sunset review. And when the original agreed upon goals of any program have been met, it automatically loses funding and cannot change its mission.
Again, the federal government will never be small, but it can be smarter and more thrifty than it is now. Maybe there is some common ground here after all, Bob and Sara.
Comment Posted By still liberal On 26.11.2008 @ 20:43
Bob C wrote:
"There are very simple, nearly universal conservative concepts that should drive both the party and the rightroots: strong national defense, limited government, secure borders, low taxes."
Bob, one of the problems with the right is that these principles are locked in stone for most, as if Moses had brought them down the mountain on a table. Number One, the government is operating in a very complex, interwoven society and American government will never be small or limited. It cannot. The federal government can be downsized, but not by much. Every dollar spent on anything has constituents, lobbyists and supportive lawmakers. Hell, the Rural Electrification Administration is going full tilt many decades after Antelope Spit, Wyoming and every area like it) has been fully electrified.
I, too like low taxes but who is going to pay back the massive trillions of dollars debt incurred in the last few years , and when, and how?
And exactly what is a strong national defense currently? One built to root out terrorists, one to prepare for a burgeoning military influence of China, one to act as a disaster reaction team in the United States? Which one? Can't afford them all.
Think about the writing Rick just offered. Everything must be on the table for any party to succeed and change as needed.
Comment Posted By still liberal On 25.11.2008 @ 19:09
WILL NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE KILL CONSERVATISM?
Instead of HOW conservative philosophy be translated into successful governing policy, the question might better be CAN conservative philosophy be translated into successful governing policy? Ask yourself, where has conservative ideals held power successfully for more than three or four decades? It hasn't.
Karl Marx wrote beautiful philosophy. What better than a utopia where everyone got what they needed and contributed what they could. Sweeter than speckled puppies and John Denver tunes! However, communism turned out to be a complete and total disaster as a political operating system. It's idealism was far above any practical human implementation and easily highjacked by ill intended thugs. Could conservatism suffer from the same lack of practical implementation problems as communism?
The first few years of the Reagan conservative revolution was a great success by anyone's standards. It devolved into a muddle and mess as the practicalities of running a modern government could not be contained by the small and less costly model government envisioned by conservative philosophy. Speading democracy through force and unconstrained, unregulated big business did not fare much better. Beautiful ideals and sturdy sounding philosophy, but very poor policy and even worse outcomes. Not to mention also easily highjacked by ill intended thugs.
While far from perfect, there is a reason why liberal thought has driven Western culture since the Enlightenment and usually with great success. Government is ultimately about results that work for the times in which policies are implemented, not ideological purity.
Comment Posted By still liberal On 22.11.2008 @ 22:39
What one can see in Rick's writings and most thoughtful conservatives is not racism. I do see objections to the policies of some on the left in addressing racial injustice. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton have often pressured companies to benefit their race based organizations. Quotas based on race are another issue I see conservatives disagreeing with, These are based in political philosophy, not racism. Obama is the post-racial President or so I heard from the man himself. His election moves us to a new level, I have heard. Let's base arguments on the merits of the argument, not on BS racial suppositions.
Comment Posted By still liberal On 14.11.2008 @ 09:35
SUCKLING THE GOVERNMENT SUGAR TIT
Lobbying is done under the Constituional right of citizens to petition the government. Is there anything in the Constitution that allows citizens to hire people on their behalf to petition the government? Is lobbying even Constitutional?
OK, I'm dreaming but the question remains.
1st Amendment couldn't be clearer - citizens have the right to "redress greivances" - the very definition of a lobbyist in most cases. If an action by government - either through commission or ommission - is damaging, you have every right to hire a lobbyist to seek redress.
ed.
Comment Posted By still liberal On 13.11.2008 @ 10:05
ON BEING NOBLE AND OTHER NONSENSICAL IDEAS IN THE AGE OF OBAMA
"I believe it is self-evident to any conservative which is why I am confident that we would shame the left with our ideas of what constitutes a “loyal opposition”..."
Given the crazed, hysterical response to the Clinton White House by conservatives, it is not quite clear upon which you make this statement.
That said, of course Obama has a vision of what the country is to become. Every President has a vision of the future shape the country will take. The Presidency is far more than just a job (despite Gov. Palin's insistence that the campaign was a job interview). To develop a vision of the country and its future and make it happen is the highest of political acts. Ronald Reagan was brilliant in visioning a future and setting it in motion. So was Franklin Roosevelt. This is not wrong, but the pinnacle of leadership. Conservatives may not agree with the vision Obama has, but then liberals certainly did not agree with George W. Bush's vision of the nation, but it appears we may yet survive his presidency.
Lastly, you say that, "We must refuse to allow Obama and his allies any room to breathe when it comes to opposing their stated intent to “remake” America into something it was never intended to be." A major point of contention with conservatives is that they "know" the intent of the Founding Fathers. No you don't. You see their intent through the lenses of conservatism, just as I see the work of the Founding Fathers through liberal lenses. We are both offering interpretations of intent, not fact. Of course conservatives should oppose Obama on points of policy they disagree with. But please don't think your ideas are the "truth" about the intent of the Founders. This absoluteness is the same thing that makes religion such a poor basis for political argument. It is impossible to negotiate or compromise when you have "the truth." And of course it is blatently obvious that people can read the same sacred scriptures and find hundreds of different and opposing versions of "absolute truth." Same with the writings of the Founding Fathers. I respect your opinion and you should fight for it, but don't elevate it beyond opinion.
Comment Posted By still liberal On 8.11.2008 @ 15:29
Very gracious thoughts indeed. Thank you. We are all now living in a post 11/4 world.
Comment Posted By still liberal On 5.11.2008 @ 22:05
'WE DIDN'T KNOW" WILL NOT BE AN ACCEPTED EXCUSE
Nagarajan Sivakumar said:
"As far as Still Liberal is concerned, “more conservative” means more racism, more tax cuts for the wealthy and more hunger for international disputes."
Well thanks for thinking for me, Mr. Sivakumar. My request was for you all to think for yourself, not think for me. But thanks anyway. I do not equate conservatism with racism. Living in Kansas means being surrounded by conservatives. My conservative friends and family members are not racist nor is there anything inherently racist about conservative philosophy. Have some conservatives been racist? Yes and so have some liberals. This is better attributed to these people being assholes in general instead of putting it on any political philosophy.
Do I think big business benefits from conservatives in power? Why yes I do. The tax code is not 2 feet thick for any other reason than to provide tax breaks and incentives for the well-to-do, a redistribution of the wealth upward to the faction with more money individually, but no where near as much as the middle class collectively. (We pay a lot more taxes collectively than the rich because we outnumber than many, many times over.) Will this continue with conservatives in power? You betcha!
Lastly, Mr. Nagarajan Sivakumar, the ugly reality that conservatism faces come from decades of conservative philosophy holding sway in America. If you had read my words for content instead of a launching pad for a screed, you may have noticed that I did not say working to be more idelogically conservative was wrong. I said it will lead conservatism to a longer period of being out of power. You can never convince people in general that the reason their shit sandwich didn't taste good was because there was too much mayo and not enough pure shit.
Comment Posted By still liberal On 1.11.2008 @ 14:19
