The open political discussion thread. Read the first post!

[mo_feezy]

lol. you are a lost cause. beck specifically showed a video of a dancing troupe from kansas city. claimed they were a part of obamas secret negro army. Using HP as a source is ok, because they link to videos from outside sources. All I wanted people to look at was the videos.

as for the size of becks gathering. it's been called out already as a blatant lie. michelle malkin got busted for showing photoshopped pictures that "enhanced" the size. they were even using pictures from Obama's inauguration as pictures of becks gathering. which is completely ridiculous to compare the two in size.

secondly, you left out the parts about what his supporters in those photos support: racism, being completely misinformed/stupid (especially the "birthers").

[2+2]

Originally Posted by mo_feezy

lol. you are a lost cause. beck specifically showed a video of a dancing troupe from kansas city. claimed they were a part of obamas secret negro army. Using HP as a source is ok, because they link to videos from outside sources. All I wanted people to look at was the videos.

as for the size of becks gathering. it's been called out already as a blatant lie. michelle malkin got busted for showing photoshopped pictures that "enhanced" the size. they were even using pictures from Obama's inauguration as pictures of becks gathering. which is completely ridiculous to compare the two in size.

secondly, you left out the parts about what his supporters in those photos support: racism, being completely misinformed/stupid (especially the "birthers").

Agreed.

Kal-El - I don't mean to sound disrespectful but you sound young. You don't know what a fascist is and yet you rail against them and socialists and liberals and, and, and. Why regurgitate what you've heard on the radio? It isn't really that much harder to think for yourself.

To start with, how many countries around the world are 100% socialist or 100% capitalist? You know life isn't that black and white, don't you? It's just never that simple. Most countries have elements of each system, even China.

In the health care debate, I've heard there are 1300 different insurance companies with 1300 different forms for doctors to have to figure out. You think that's efficient? I think we should go all the way <gasp> to a single payer government run system that streamlines all that paperwork. What do YOU think? No, I'm not asking you what Rush or Sean or Glenn thinks. What do you think? What's the capitalist answer to that little problem?

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by 2+2

Agreed.

Kal-El - I don't mean to sound disrespectful but you sound young. You don't know what a fascist is and yet you rail against them and socialists and liberals and, and, and. Why regurgitate what you've heard on the radio? It isn't really that much harder to think for yourself.

To start with, how many countries around the world are 100% socialist or 100% capitalist? You know life isn't that black and white, don't you? It's just never that simple. Most countries have elements of each system, even China.

In the health care debate, I've heard there are 1300 different insurance companies with 1300 different forms for doctors to have to figure out. You think that's efficient? I think we should go all the way <gasp> to a single payer government run system that streamlines all that paperwork. What do YOU think? No, I'm not asking you what Rush or Sean or Glenn thinks. What do you think? What's the capitalist answer to that little problem?

For the record, I'm 30. I was a liberal up until last year then I woke up.

When was the last time government streamlined something, reduced costs, and reduced paperwork??? LOL!! Government does the exact opposite in every chance they've gotten. They are notorious for complicating everything into 1000+ page bills and spent us into $100 trillion in obligations. And you think they are going to fix health care??? That's freakin' hilarious.

And I only think for myself, thank you.

[2+2]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

For the record, I'm 30. I was a liberal up until last year then I woke up.

When was the last time government streamlined something, reduced costs, and reduced paperwork??? LOL!! Government does the exact opposite in every chance they've gotten. They are notorious for complicating everything into 1000+ page bills and spent us into $100 trillion in obligations. And you think they are going to fix health care??? That's freakin' hilarious.

And I only think for myself, thank you.

Good answer and I find it interesting that you were a liberal until last year.

I hear ya on your skepticism about the government's ability to do anything right. What's the alternative? Is there a non-socialist way to reduce the number of insurance companies or at least force them to all use the same paperwork etc? Even Obama's plan to force insurance companies to not drop people for serious or preexisting illnesses has some problems I think. The "experts" are all saying health care is going to bankrupt the country if we don't fix it. So what's the answer?


Edit: lol cross post. There's too many people ganging up on you Kal-El! lol I'm backing off. You're fighting a good fight though!

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by 2+2

Good answer and I find it interesting that you were a liberal until last year.

I hear ya on your skepticism about the government's ability to do anything right. What's the alternative? Is there a non-socialist way to reduce the number of insurance companies or at least force them to all use the same paperwork etc? Even Obama's plan to force insurance companies to not drop people for serious or preexisting illnesses has some problems I think. The "experts" are all saying health care is going to bankrupt the country if we don't fix it. So what's the answer?


Edit: lol cross post. There's too many people ganging up on you Kal-El! lol I'm backing off. You're fighting a good fight though!

Good questions.

As everyone reinforces, health care is pretty much the most complicated thing out there. Reform of any kind will not be easy.

Conservatives call for...

-Tort reform - stop or cap the frivolous law suits that skyrocket doctor costs.

-having existing insurance companies compete and operate in most states rather than just one or a few. That way customers really have many choices among the 1300 existing companies. Most states are dominated by only a couple of companies.

-regulations that make it illegal for companies to refuse people because of pre-existing conditions (both sides agree here).

-illegal to drop customers of refuse coverage for needed procedures

Just these things alone would make a HUGE difference.
No need to overhaul the whole system and introduce a government plan that will kill off the private sector.

[Bob Dog]

I must take issue with what is a misuse of the term conservative. A true conservative is one who holds closely to traditional held values. A true conservative is slow to change, and questions the new in the light of how it would alter that which has long served our nation and protected our values. In doing so, this protects us from the usurpation of the very bedrock of tradition on which our country is founded. There is much to be said in favor of this. Many times things of great value can be lost in passing fads of political opinion. Conservatism is the political opinion those who have great entitlements, as with person of great wealth, and sometimes those who have little and are afraid of losing what little they have. This can, however, lead to a resistance to change, when change is truly necessary. Dwight Eisenhauer could be considered a true conservative. From Richard Nixon on the Republican presidents have not been truly conservative, but men with self serving agendas primarily directed at keeping the wealthy wealthy and also enhancing the degree of their wealth.

Liberalism is traditionally an openness to change. True liberals wish to alter things that exist, to right inequities and wrongs in the existing system. A true liberal’s goal is not to change the system for the sake of change, but to change the system to that degree which corrects the aforementioned wrongs. I consider Kennedy, and Carter to be true liberals. They wished to change our system mostly to correct grave injustices. Change is often a good and necessary thing, but if used carelessly much can be lost to change. Barak Obama, whom I voted for president, is not a liberal in the traditional sense. He seems to think that change for its own sake is a good thing. I withhold my very humble judgement of him, for after the radical modifications of the Bush administration, a great deal of change is in order.

A radical is a person whose opinions deviates greatly from mainstream opinion and they often are based on a personal agenda.

A reactionary is a political person whose opinions are basically a response to someone else's political opinions. They are not founded in deep thought, or consideration of the long term good of our nation. They are most often emotional in nature and self serving

An extremist is one who takes the point of view as far as possible in the direction of their particular predilection with little regard for the ultimate results that an execution of their point of view into reality.

Radical Reactionary Extremist, not conservative, is the proper category into which to place Beck, O’Reilly and Hannity.

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by Bob Dog

I must take issue with what is a misuse of the term conservative. A true conservative is one who holds closely to traditional held values. A true conservative is slow to change, and questions the new in the light of how it would alter that which has long served our nation and protected our values. In doing so, this protects us from the usurpation of the very bedrock of tradition on which our country is founded. There is much to be said in favor of this. Many times things of great value can be lost in passing fads of political opinion. Conservatism is the political opinion those who have great entitlements, as with person of great wealth, and sometimes those who have little and are afraid of losing what little they have. This can, however, lead to a resistance to change, when change is truly necessary. Dwight Eisenhauer could be considered a true conservative. From Richard Nixon on the Republican presidents have not been truly conservative, but men with self serving agendas primarily directed at keeping the wealthy wealthy and also enhancing the degree of their wealth.

Liberalism is traditionally an openness to change. True liberals wish to alter things that exist, to right inequities and wrongs in the existing system. A true liberal’s goal is not to change the system for the sake of change, but to change the system to that degree which corrects the aforementioned wrongs. I consider Kennedy, and Carter to be true liberals. They wished to change our system mostly to correct grave injustices. Change is often a good and necessary thing, but if used carelessly much can be lost to change. Barak Obama, whom I voted for president, is not a liberal in the traditional sense. He seems to think that change for its own sake is a good thing. I withhold my very humble judgement of him, for after the radical modifications of the Bush administration, a great deal of change is in order.

A radical is a person whose opinions deviates greatly from mainstream opinion and they often are based on a personal agenda.

A reactionary is a political person whose opinions are basically a response to someone else's political opinions. They are not founded in deep thought, or consideration of the long term good of our nation. They are most often emotional in nature and self serving

An extremist is one who takes the point of view as far as possible in the direction of their particular predilection with little regard for the ultimate results that an execution of their point of view into reality.

Radical Reactionary Extremist, not conservative, is the proper category into which to place Beck, O’Reilly and Hannity.

I agree with a lot of your assessment except for the last line.

I'm not a big fan of O'Really but these guys aren't radical reactionary extremist.

A liberal may see it that way, but really they are simply reassuring what conservatives and liberatarians already believe by reporting and commenting on political news from a conservative perspective. They aren't pushing a "personal agenda" but rather standing up for conservatism because no one else in media will. So their passion comes off as extreme to the other side.

People make fun of Beck when he gets emotional, but those are his true feelings coming out because of his love for the foundation and Constitution of America. He doesn't want to see it thrown away in favor of another system. So he gets passionate about it. America is lucky to have someone so brave.

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by mo_feezy

as for the size of becks gathering. it's been called out already as a blatant lie. michelle malkin got busted for showing photoshopped pictures that "enhanced" the size. they were even using pictures from Obama's inauguration as pictures of becks gathering. which is completely ridiculous to compare the two in size.

secondly, you left out the parts about what his supporters in those photos support: racism, being completely misinformed/stupid (especially the "birthers").

Here you go since you're so in denial....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VMXz6xGeqc

Yup, a blatant lie. It was all made up.

[Kal-El]

BTW, only 20% of Americans claim to be liberals. I think they are all on here!

So I don't expect to get anywhere with my posts. Nevertheless, I'll try to open some eyes.

I do realize I'm on a fuel efficient car forum = liberals galore. But I thought that there were more of a variety of people that bought the Yaris for economical reasons or just because they liked the car. Seems like we have a lot of people here that apparently believe global warming is real (even though it's been cooling for the last 10 years) and feel that they needed to do their part with a gas sipper. Just an observation because all of the other forums I'm on are more split politically.

Flame on...

[RedRide]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

BTW, only 20% of Americans claim to be liberals. I think they are all on here!

So I don't expect to get anywhere with my posts. Nevertheless, I'll try to open some eyes.

I do realize I'm on a fuel efficient car forum = liberals galore. But I thought that there were more of a variety of people that bought the Yaris for economical reasons or just because they liked the car. Seems like we have a lot of people here that apparently believe global warming is real (even though it's been cooling for the last 10 years) and feel that they needed to do their part with a gas sipper. Just an observation because all of the other forums I'm on are more split politically.

Flame on...

Just for the record, I am not a "liberal"

Perhaps you can tell us exactly why you call people who wish to seek the tuth "liberal"?

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by RedRide

Just for the record, I am not a "liberal"

Perhaps you can tell us exactly why you call people who wish to seek the tuth "liberal"?

There's generally 3 categories in America. Liberal, conservative, moderate (independent perhaps).

I guess it means you're an independent?

Doesn't matter really but one can easily guess based on the ideals of a persons posts.

And it seems clear that the left on here does everything to avoid the truth by denying video proof and published works of the things that are said by these people in Washington.

[2006fronty]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

They support my posts. He did indeed co-author those books. And a co-author is completely responsible for the contents.

Holdren was the third author (with Paul and Anne Ehrlich) of that book. They DESCRIBED not ADVOCATED these measures.

Originally Posted by Kal-El

Of course he will now say his views are changed, but it doesn't change what he once proposed.

Originally Posted by Kal-El

For the record, I'm 30. I was a liberal up until last year then I woke up.

Since apparently peoples views never change ^^^. You were a "liberal" until a year ago lol. Holdren was the 3rd author of a book over 30 years ago. He couldn't change his views over 32 years, how did you in 1 year?????

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by 2006fronty

Holdren was the third author (with Paul and Anne Ehrlich) of that book. They DESCRIBED not ADVOCATED these measures.



Since apparently peoples views never change ^^^. You were a "liberal" until a year ago lol. Holdren was the 3rd author of a book over 30 years ago. He couldn't change his views over 32 years, how did you in 1 year?????

Fear point. Some people change. Maybe his most extreme views have changed but his recent works still paint him as way to the left. And as one of the most powerful advisers to the president, it's not good.

[2+2]

Pew poll says the media sucks

What can people believe these days? hehe Not much.

But taking a step back I think it's interesting that right wing groups form militias, left wing groups form, er I dunno er golf leagues? Right wing groups show up at town hall meetings to hear the President speak and bring their firearms with them. I'm sure they're just expressing their appreciation for their 2nd amendment rights. lol Left wing groups sit on the couch and hit the clicker when they don't like what's on tv at the moment - like when Bush took away their right to habeas corpus.

Right wingers seem to want to hate. Photoshopping pics of the President - adding a Hitler moustache just shows ignorance and an eagerness to hate. Hitler was a fascist! You can't call someone a socialist in an effort to get people all worked up and in the same breath paint him as a fascist. A socialist is a leftist. A fascist is at the far right of the spectrum. You can't be both, at least not at the same time. Anyone that wants to be a hater should at least try to be good at it.

Anyone that can't size up an idiot like Glenn Beck and see him for what he is quite frankly, worries me a little.

Glenn Beck on health care

Rush, Sean, Glenn and the rest of the people that seem to be trying to incite people to hate are unbelievably irresponsible. I predict that soon we'll start seeing the rise of right wing extremist militias, and they're going to create quite a bit of mischief.

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by 2+2

But taking a step back I think it's interesting that right wing groups form militias, left wing groups form, er I dunno er golf leagues? Right wing groups show up at town hall meetings to hear the President speak and bring their firearms with them. I'm sure they're just expressing their appreciation for their 2nd amendment rights. lol Left wing groups sit on the couch and hit the clicker when they don't like what's on tv at the moment - like when Bush took away their right to habeas corpus.

Right wingers seem to want to hate. Photoshopping pics of the President - adding a Hitler moustache just shows ignorance and an eagerness to hate. Hitler was a fascist! You can't call someone a socialist in an effort to get people all worked up and in the same breath paint him as a fascist. A socialist is a leftist. A fascist is at the far right of the spectrum. You can't be both, at least not at the same time. Anyone that wants to be a hater should at least try to be good at it.
.

Do a google search for Bush/Hitler and you'll find way more photoshops of Bush as hitler than there is of Obama as him. Was that OK?

For much of Bush's presidency, there were heavy, violent protesting. Have we forgotten that soon?

It goes both ways.

We have a country sharply divided in two that just can't agree on politics. It's always been like that and probably won't change.