Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
As I've said before, somewhere along the line Beck has changed. I personally think it started with him going to TV. When he was only on radio he was a fairly decent listen. But the last time I heard him on the radio it was all xenophobia and fearmongering. Now that I think about it, his change is probably related to the aftermath of 9/11 and the rise of xenophobia in America post 9/11. Of course this xenophobia all ties into the border militas and tea party hate of Obama(He's a secret muslim/no birth certificate nonsense)
Statements like this tell me you don't have a clue what Beck is peddling nowadays. What I've heard is not "Republicans are good, Democrats are bad" but "The entire system needs to be overhauled. The Federal Government is a bloated monster that has gotten out of control". I am hard pressed to disagree with him on this point.
He plays well to small government conservatives and the tea party clique. Thats not what makes him popular though. His wildly inaccurate and inflammatory worldview is what brings in the masses. There are plenty of well reasoned small government conservatives that want heavy overhauls of the system, glenn beck is just the slowed monkey that panders to the scum at the bottom of the conservative barrel.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
If you want to actually think you might consider some of the points Henry Rollins brings up.
To each their own.
Special unique snowflake of unique specialness (+1/+3versus werewolves)
Alternatively I'm a magical internet fairy.
Pho indignation *IS* the tastiest form of angry!
dogma wrote:The same thing needed to happen with respect to liberal politics. Instead we got Pelosi and Reid. Maybe someone will decided to read a little Marcuse, and put on the daddy pants.
I would argue there isn't a shortage of intellectual liberal thought, but I would certainly argue they have failed (almost entirely) to have that thought put into Democratic policy.
The Green Git wrote:[Good thing Beck isn't a politician. He's a political commentator who has an opinion show. I know it's hard to keep up with these small things we call "facts" but do try.
I mentioned the poor quality of political dialogue, you explain that Beck isn’t a politician but a political commentator. Presumably your point is that political commentators are not part of the political dialogue, presumably because commentary is not dialogue.
I think we can safely put that into the gibberish category and move on.
You know, I used to think Beck was a circus act. But then I actually listened to him and started to hear talk about the US Constitution, preserving our economy through thrift and saving, limiting the infringement of our God given rights, and criticizing Republicans and Democrats alike. It is quite refreshing actually.
Of course I still think he's a buffoon on camera. He does have ratings to keep up, after all. Like any good satirist he goes to ludicrous extremes to make a point and to a large degree it's effective. Of course it gives critics a lot of ammunition and sound bites. In a way I like this because in writing Beck off as a rubber room candidate the Liberals miss the greater threat he poses. Beck spurs people to become interested in foundational issues like history and law that they would otherwise not delve into.
I still think Beck is a circus act, but now I think it's a circus act to get you in the door and deliver the message.
You’re focussing on the theatre, and claiming there’s a serious message underneath. Problematically, the message underneath is stupid. Beck compares moderate social reform to communism and fascism, and demonstrates a woeful understanding of all three.
Statements like this tell me you don't have a clue what Beck is peddling nowadays. What I've heard is not "Republicans are good, Democrats are bad" but "The entire system needs to be overhauled. The Federal Government is a bloated monster that has gotten out of control". I am hard pressed to disagree with him on this point.
The message you’ve credited to Beck is the GOP standard message. I think its very silly to pretend a politician that is embraced by the GOP and gives their message is not part of that group.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:
I would argue there isn't a shortage of intellectual liberal thought, but I would certainly argue they have failed (almost entirely) to have that thought put into Democratic policy.
True, there is no shortage when it comes to intellectual liberals. That's not really the problem. The problem is that there aren't many intellectual liberals turning out original, or interesting, work.
Its one thing to play to the same issues over time, its another to play to them in the exact same way. There is something to be said for originality for originality's sake; especially when your primary issue areas have been emphasized so heavily for so long.
I mean really, I would have thought that this incarnation of Democratic Party would have managed to deviate from Clinton policy in more than just rhetoric; especially given the fate of healthcare reform during that administration.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
It would take a herculean effort to shift the major focus of either political party away from what they represent today. The major shifts in policy that we have seen from both Democrats and Republicans are by now decades old. The democrats for instance have been left leaning relatively unopposed by it's centrist and right wing members since the 1960's and 70's when the Republicans and Democrats effectively switched vote bases (Dems became more conscious of the Civil Rights movement for instance).
The current incarnation of the Republicans are a byproduct of the Ronald Reagan era and to an extent the 1994 successes in congressional seating when they made that "Contract with America," effective turning themselves into social, budget and war hawks.
As of now, for what each party represents, they fail to impress me. Why? It's actually a matter of increasingly different viewpoints. Because they are polarizing so greatly and because there is no clear cut majority, the Democrats cannot enact what they see are legislation that would help America. Conversely, they cannot find many (if any) Republicans willing to help. Republicans find many Americans who are unwilling to go along with what the Democrats are proposing and are exploiting that in order to turn lukewarm feelings to Democratic proposals into fear and hate.
WarOne wrote:It would take a herculean effort to shift the major focus of either political party away from what they represent today. The major shifts in policy that we have seen from both Democrats and Republicans are by now decades old. The democrats for instance have been left leaning relatively unopposed by it's centrist and right wing members since the 1960's and 70's when the Republicans and Democrats effectively switched vote bases (Dems became more conscious of the Civil Rights movement for instance).
I probably should have been more clear. I don't expect, or even want, either party to change their policy foci. Rather, I want, and expect, them to chase the same ends through different means.
WarOne wrote:
Conversely, they cannot find many (if any) Republicans willing to help. Republicans find many Americans who are unwilling to go along with what the Democrats are proposing and are exploiting that in order to turn lukewarm feelings to Democratic proposals into fear and hate.
From a standpoint of political will there is no incentive for any member of the opposition party to go along with legislation proposed by the majority. Partisan branding is generally stronger than individual decisions as associated with elected officials. This is particularly true of any party which bases its platform on the premise that government is intrinsically inefficient.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dogma wrote:True, there is no shortage when it comes to intellectual liberals. That's not really the problem. The problem is that there aren't many intellectual liberals turning out original, or interesting, work.
Interesting point. I admit I don't spend a large amount of time reading US liberal intellectuals, outside of economics. I think there's some pretty interesting stuff there, but then it's filtered through the political process to produce the same old free markets with a support network stuff we've seen since the end of the war.
I can't really fault the Obama and the Democrats for tackling healthcare, because it is such a serious problem. Other than that I do agree that Obama's presidency is more less Cinton v2.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarOne wrote:The current incarnation of the Republicans are a byproduct of the Ronald Reagan era and to an extent the 1994 successes in congressional seating when they made that "Contract with America," effective turning themselves into social, budget and war hawks.
The significant change was Nixon's Southern Strategy, I think everything since has more or less been a result of that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/03/10 08:58:10
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Sorry, Lee Atwater's souther strategy as applied in Richard M. Nixon's 1968 campaign.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:
You’re focussing on the theatre, and claiming there’s a serious message underneath. Problematically, the message underneath is stupid. Beck compares moderate social reform to communism and fascism, and demonstrates a woeful understanding of all three.
This isn't isolated to just Beck though. I have been running into this problem for years, as I have always been reform minded. Many of my republican friends don't realize that institutions like the E.P.A., O.S.H.A., V.A. and many other governement buerocracies are actually socialistic in nature. The term socialist is not necesarily a bad term, but Americans are so overly indoctrinated to hate national SOCIALism and marxist/lenninism (Union of soviet SOCIALIST republic) that they kneejerk, ands think anything that has the word socialism in it MUST be bad.
If it wasn't for socialistic movements we would still have women working naked in coal mines 16 hour days for nickels, and 10 and 12 year old children working in meat factories.
So again it's not limited to Beck but is an ingrained American thing. And a national health care system, will never pass as long as this type of fear lingers.
The fear over health care isn't a fear of health care reform. Its a fear of the horror show that is the current proposals combined with the very clear understanding that our government is basically incompetent to performing most activities outside of the military.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote:Women never worked in coal mines in the US.
Never said they did, it was common in England though.
Frazzled wrote:
The fear over health care isn't a fear of health care reform. Its a fear of the horror show that is the current proposals combined with the very clear understanding that our government is basically incompetent to performing most activities outside of the military.
I agree that this current attempted implementation of healthcare was handled poorly, however I really think that a real reformed health care system won't happen until a major crises happens which forces us into it.
GG
....edited for typos..... grrrrr
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/03/10 18:32:33
The problem with Socialism and socialist programs is they are great on paper but when implemented suffer from the foundational issue that imperfect humans are implementing them.
When an imperfect human is placed in the position of arbiter to decide what's fair and what isn't, hijinx ensue. That's human nature. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
This is the reason we need less government, not more. The bare minimum. Government is not the solution to all man's ills, it's a necessary EVIL that should be tolerated in as small a dose as is necessary to do the job and not one drop more.
The Green Git wrote:The problem with Socialism and socialist programs is they are great on paper but when implemented suffer from the foundational issue that imperfect humans are implementing them.
When an imperfect human is placed in the position of arbiter to decide what's fair and what isn't, hijinx ensue. That's human nature. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
This is the reason we need less government, not more. The bare minimum. Government is not the solution to all man's ills, it's a necessary EVIL that should be tolerated in as small a dose as is necessary to do the job and not one drop more.
I agree with a lot of what you said, except that without government to protect it's citizens, it's also human nature for the private sector to become corrupt and abusive.
I' have always said pure unfettereed capitalism doesn't work. Same with pure enfettered socialism. You need a balance to make a good government.
The problem, of course, is finding the proper balance. If the balance is not even attempted than you have stagnation and no change.
GG
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/03/10 16:51:26
Okay, regarding the healthcare issue I've been thinking, why not have the federal government abandon what they're doing, and instead work on allowing the states more of an opportunity to set up what they think is a good plan for their region. Right now it seems like we're just getting a dysfunctional hybrid, and the Democrats in congress seem reluctant to commit to such a gigantic overhaul.
Smaller states could pool resources, so they don't get left behind. The federal government could deal with taxes, patents, and so forth.
Proponents of healthcare reform already point to what Massachusetts has done as evidence that it would work well; they shouldn't have a problem with other states following in suit. If I recall, there are some that have legislation in the works on this sort of thing already. It would circumvent the constitutional issue of the federal government mandating the purchase of insurance, and it would allow for different types of reform (or none at all) to be tried simultaneously (hopefully with none of them ending up too destructive).
Any thoughts?
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Okay, regarding the healthcare issue I've been thinking, why not have the federal government abandon what they're doing, and instead work on allowing the states more of an opportunity to set up what they think is a good plan for their region. Right now it seems like we're just getting a dysfunctional hybrid, and the Democrats in congress seem reluctant to commit to such a gigantic overhaul.
Smaller states could pool resources, so they don't get left behind. The federal government could deal with taxes, patents, and so forth.
Proponents of healthcare reform already point to what Massachusetts has done as evidence that it would work well; they shouldn't have a problem with other states following in suit. If I recall, there are some that have legislation in the works on this sort of thing already. It would circumvent the constitutional issue of the federal government mandating the purchase of insurance, and it would allow for different types of reform (or none at all) to be tried simultaneously (hopefully with none of them ending up too destructive).
Any thoughts?
Because you don't need the Federal Government to do that? They could do that now. But then the power grab would not succeed.
FYI Massachussetts, the closest thing to the proposals now, is a basket case with exploding costs.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote:Because you don't need the Federal Government to do that? They could do that now. But then the power grab would not succeed.
The federal government could do more to help, but yeah, it would mostly be state legislatures taking charge, and they could do most of it right now, if there was the political will to do so. However, if those in favor of major healthcare reform pulled out (most of) their support from congress and directed it at the state level I think they would get something closer to what they want, in the states where they have the biggest presence, at least.
FYI Massachusetts, the closest thing to the proposals now, is a basket case with exploding costs.
I'm hearing mixed reviews, which is why I really don't want to see this kind of thing implemented on a national scale...
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
The Green Git wrote:The problem with Socialism and socialist programs is they are great on paper but when implemented suffer from the foundational issue that imperfect humans are implementing them.
When an imperfect human is placed in the position of arbiter to decide what's fair and what isn't, hijinx ensue. That's human nature. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
This is the reason we need less government, not more. The bare minimum. Government is not the solution to all man's ills, it's a necessary EVIL that should be tolerated in as small a dose as is necessary to do the job and not one drop more.
The same holds true of all centers of power. To trust the private citizen because you fear the corruption a government brings is to lack an inherent understanding of the corruption of the public, and the absolute lack of accountability it holds over itself. People, whose only motive is likely greed, do no better than governments who often at least have altruistic purposes reigning in it's officials. The centers of power are always the arbiters of human action, mask it in words all you like but you're drawing a circle in the sand around government when you so clearly don't understand the evils that exist outside that circle.
Because you don't need the Federal Government to do that? They could do that now. But then the power grab would not succeed.
FYI Massachussetts, the closest thing to the proposals now, is a basket case with exploding costs.
Primarily because it's a patch on a broken system. Private insurance is a fundamentally flawed idea and is at the core of every healthcare issue we are having today. The system will only get off the road to collapse when it stops having a for profit middleman between citizens and care. I don't really care if it's a for profit system (though I believe that stands against the concept of healthcare as a right) but the insurance system is such a fethed up pile of gak that nothing will ever get fixed while it still exists.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/03/10 19:52:37
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Frazzled wrote:Women never worked in coal mines in the US.
The fear over health care isn't a fear of health care reform. Its a fear of the horror show that is the current proposals combined with the...
Or at least the hyperbolic interpretation of the current proposals that is the currency of the public debate.
Frazzled wrote:
...very clear understanding that our government is basically incompetent to performing most activities outside of the military.
Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare enjoy broad popularity; implying that belief in the fundamentally incompetent nature of state is either very shallow, or deeply hypocritical. True, there's the argument from financial mismanagement, but even in the business world projections can indicate a coming loss. This doesn't imply mismanagement, so much as the need to adapt to a changing world. Though the fact that alterations were not made to the entitlements throughout the past 20 years certainly points to a dearth of political will.
More likely, I expect that any federal spending which an individual voter does not benefit from is likely to be seen as a form of incompetence; correctly or otherwise.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
