Comments Posted By Still Liberal
Displaying 81 To 90 Of 99 Comments
retire o5
Thank you for your second response. I would agree with you that government did not "force" companies to provide health insurance. Companies did indeed use health insurance to compete for workers during WWII when workers were in short supply, then the government "encouraged" company provided health insurance through tax incentives, eventually institutionalizing the idea. I was wrong to use "force" and appreciate the correction. Be sure that I will read regarding Maurice Strong on your recommendation.
We agree on unions-will probably lose my liberal card, but the good unions once did in ending many terrible workplace conditions is now outweighed by their contribution to workplace erosion and sending jobs overseas.
The horrible earmark spending on stupid stuff is a matter we also agree on. It is a trait shared by the right and the left and I don't know how to make elected officials stop buying votes with our money. Some of this material, we will just agree to disagree, but I respect your opinion even when we don't agree. Maybe Rick Moran can teach us all something if we give him a chance to further explain the difference between conservative philosophy and movement politics.
Comment Posted By still liberal On 27.05.2008 @ 13:55
still liberal Said:
11:11 pmTo retire05:
Comment Posted By still liberal On 27.05.2008 @ 07:11
"I suspect I will not have much luck trying to talk with you. . ."
Well, got that one right. First, the draconian discussion was Rick's, not mine. Did you not see the quotation marks? Secondly, I could give a shit less whether talk radio survives or not. They have the right to say whatever they want, my point was about its impact on conservatism as it changes, not its existence. I don't support the Fairness Doctrine, free speech and all that silliness is very important to me. Thirdly, I am not a Democrat. Lastly, your litany of suppositions and stereotypic reactions are a major part of the problems with today's conservatism according to the original article under discussion. At least try to keep up before shifting into insult mode.
To retire05:
I suspect I will not have much luck trying to talk with you, but you often have very good points here, so here goes. While it is certain that illegal immigration depresses wages in certain sectors of the economy, skilled middle class workers are being squeezed by many other factors including devaluation of the dollar, oil futures speculation, government policies that favor corporate profits at the expense of workers, lost benefits such as a guaranteed retirement and affordable health care, just to name a few.
Health insurance. If you have company provided health care, it is not because your company is just real nice. Government policy placed health insurance responsibilities onto companies a long time ago and use tax breaks and the threat of punishment to keep them providing it. And this may be a suprise, but the insurance premiums you and your company pay do not just cover you. The whole idea of insurance is a form of socialism, in which all benefit by pooling risks and costs. It is but a small step to have the government force universal coverage, as all coverage except self-insurance is forced now anyway. Universal health care would require all of the people to have insurance insead of letting them choose cable over insurance, so this would be a solution to your complaint.
Global warming. My suggestion here is to follow some of Rick's science links and read for yourself. It is not a hoax and the science that supports that notion is irrefutable. Solutions are very political, but its existence is not subject to opinion. (I tried not to yell, just encourage you to read.)
I certainly agree with you that unnecessary government should be eliminated. The question is, who decides what is not necessary? We live in a very complicated world and government must play a larger role that did the founding fathers ever imagined necessary. The farmer and merchant society of a handful of people they lived in has been replaced by a vast and complex information society that must be regulated by government. The Chinese government places profitability above product safety and tainted medicines, pet food, lead painted toys, etc. are the results. Damned ironic for a communist government, right?
Lastly, I would hope you reread Rick's column and realize he is not advocating for leftist solutions to anything. Your response is unfortunately the very response that both Packer and Moran are warning about as unhealthy for conservatism, that is a dependence on old solutions and philosophies that no longer work. You are an thoughtful commenter and I hope you see these comments as the constructive dialogue they are intended to be.
Comment Posted By still liberal On 26.05.2008 @ 23:11
Excellent post. For me, one sentence jumps out:
". . .that modern conservatism is basically a negative ideology in that through its hostility to government – all government – its draconian social strictures (most notably against abortion and gay marriage), its hyper partisanship, and its encouraging the belief that liberals are immoral, unpatriotic, anti-Americans, conservatism’s claim to governance has run its course and the American people are ready for a change."
This is the absolute bread and butter for conservative talk radio, a major force in today's conservatism. Will it be possible to right the conservative ship with this 10 ton millstone around the right's neck or perhaps talk radio go the way of buggy whips with a major reconfiguration of conservatism?
Comment Posted By still liberal On 26.05.2008 @ 21:08
BLOG SERIES ON "WHAT AILS CONSERVATISM?" STARTS TOMORROW
I posted a request for your ideas on this very subject here on May 13, so am very much looking forward to this series. Packer's article is interesting. My hope is that your response will include a good discussion of the philosophy underlying conservatism, one, because I get the feeling that many under the conservative banner know more Limbaugh and Coulter than Burke or even Bill Buckley. And two, because the disconnect between conservative philosophy and political implementation has never been greater, seriously devaluing conservatism and its necessary role in governing America.
Comment Posted By still liberal On 26.05.2008 @ 10:34
McCAIN'S DISAVOWAL OF HAGEE A GOOD SIGN
From syn:
"But you keep on going after those evangelicals and soon there won’t be anyone left in America defending Israel; certainly those Americans in the Jewish community are not interested(I heard this statement from Israelis by the way) since they continue to vote Democrat."
Trips to Israel and massive fundraising efforts for Israeli causes are rites of passage for many American Jewish people. I suspect most American Jews would be suprised, if not offended, at the assertion that they do not defend and support Israel.
Your supposition that Democrats do not support Israel is certainly not supported by looking at American support of Israel and the Democrats who routinely vote in favor of funds for Israeli defense and other support as well. You have every right to not like Democrats but that right does not include making crap up because you don't like them.
The larger point is that it is past time for Republicans to throw the extreme Christian looneys out of the way for the health of a party ravaged by short term opportunists who used these folks to win today and the hell with the future. Rick Moran is right on target with this one.
Comment Posted By still liberal On 23.05.2008 @ 11:42
52 SECONDS OF VIDEO OF OBAMA'S PLAN FOR UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT
Absolutely spot on article. Every time we have drastically cut military spending (beyond normal post-war reductions to respond to war time buildups) we have been caught short in the next time of trouble. This goes back to at least the Civil War era and probably before. Rick is correct in that the financial costs of catching back up when needed is a massive financial penalty for neglect of the military.
Nuclear weaponry is going to exist and we may as well deal with that fact by keeping our arsenal up to date and ready for possible use. I too would like to live in a world without them, but there is no example in history in which any kind of advancement in weapons technology was eliminated because of its destructive potential. All the wishful thinking in the world will not change the fact that nuclear weaponry is here to stay. I live in Kansas and can assure you that clicking your heels together three times just smudges your shoes, it doesn't get you out of Oz.
Like a fair number of my conservative friends, I am going to hold my nose and vote McCain this fall, in large part for just the reason this article highlights so well.
Comment Posted By still liberal On 21.05.2008 @ 15:30
WHEN WILL OBAMA RESPOND TO 'APPEASEMENT' CHARGE?
16retire05 Said:
10:31 pmstill liberal, perhaps you have forgotten that Joseph Kennedy, while Ambassador to Great Britian, was such a Hitler supporter that the British kicked him out?
yep, that was Tubby Teddy’s dad.
No I have not forgot that fact. Joe Kennedy should have been tried for his crap as well. But I haven't heard Teddy beating McCain with a Nazi stick as Pressie's grandson did.
Comment Posted By Still Liberal On 18.05.2008 @ 11:56
"What in the name of all that is good and holy does George Bush’s GRANDFATHER have to do with this? It is gratuitous smear having nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand – a subject you wanted to drop like a hot potato because you can’t answer to any of the specific arguments in the post."
Umm, George Bush mentioned Nazi appeasers in 1939 and his grandfather aided the Nazis by financing them? If you do not see this as relevant them disingenuous would be a compliment.
And by the way, Article 3, in Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states in part:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, OR (emphasis added) in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
If you do not think financing an enemy is not Aid and Comfort, then again you fall short of any rational understanding. P. Bush's ongoing dealings with the Nazis after they began military actions are a matter of record so mentioning that is hardly a smear.
Comment Posted By Still Liberal On 17.05.2008 @ 18:27
And gratuitous smears? Facts are neither gratuitous nor smears. And with your track record of cheap attacks that you call "red meat" for a right wing audience, I would be very careful pissing into that particular fan.
I don't know about appeasement, but I have a strong hunch that Obama's grandfather did not provide financial backing for the Nazi party. George Bush's grandfather? Pretty well documented that he did through business arrangements with known Nazi supporting German corporations. Overall it would appear better to be a Nevell Chamberlain than a Prescott Bush. A misguided politician beats a traitor any day of the week.
What in the name of all that is good and holy does George Bush's GRANDFATHER have to do with this? It is gratuitous smear having nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand - a subject you wanted to drop like a hot potato because you can't answer to any of the specific arguments in the post.
You think that adds anything to the debate? And just to clear one thing up, a traitor is someone who aids the enemy in time of war - you know, like liberals do all the time. (How'd you like that gratuitous smear, asshole?) Prescott Bush made those investments before we were at war with Nazi Germany. That makes him a greedy capitalist pig, not a traitor.
ed.
Comment Posted By Still Liberal On 17.05.2008 @ 15:36
