The Insidious Advance of Liberalism

[decoski]

Here is this gem from Rush Limbaugh that shows how liberals vs. conservatives in power view the nation and how they want to govern it: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071707/content/01125110.guest.html

[Timothy Leary]

Liberals, as opposed to conservatives, seek to own the government.

I stopped reading there.
Obviously, Rush hasn't heard of the Bush Administration.
Either that, or he's being purposely blind.

[A-Man]

I stopped reading there.
Obviously, Rush hasn't heard of the Bush Administration.
Either that, or he's being purposely blind.

No.....Rush's definition is correct, what you have failed to understand is that while Bush may be a Republican, he is most certainly not a conservative.

[Timothy Leary]

No.....Rush's definition is correct, what you have failed to understand is that while Bush may be a Republican, he is most certainly not a conservative.
There is no such thing as a "Conservative" anymore.
You have big govt republicans, and big govt liberals.

[A-Man]

There is no such thing as a "Conservative" anymore.
You have big govt republicans, and big govt liberals.

Almost! Currently we have big government Rs and Ds. Where are the conservatives?

[Timothy Leary]

Almost! Currently we have big government Rs and Ds. Where are the conservatives?
Ron Paul is the closest thing we've got.

[A-Man]

Ron Paul is the closest thing we've got.

Whew! I'm either overtired or need glasses. I first read "Ru Paul"!

[Timothy Leary]

You got it wrong.

It's Ru Pa! Ru Pa for Prez!
:smile:

[Jme]

I read the whole thing but I didn't see where he actually says what the problem is exactly - OSHA restrictions are mentioned but no specifics, that's odd and very sloppy (if I'm right, I'm a bit sleepy though).

[Zeluvia]

OSHA is a problem? I don't think so.

Nor do I think OSHA is liberal...

However, I try as I may, I cannot listen to Rush... someone boil it down, trim the rhetoric and talking points, and pull out the issue and his point please.

[casaba]

OSHA is a problem? I don't think so.

Nor do I think OSHA is liberal...

However, I try as I may, I cannot listen to Rush... someone boil it down, trim the rhetoric and talking points, and pull out the issue and his point please.

That sounds like a fund idea, so here is a first draft:

Last week we reported[that] OSHA [a]re trying to ban ammunition [sales] from gun shops. OSHA [now] announced:

"[OSHA] will significantly revise a recent proposal for new 'explosives safety' regulations that caused serious concern among gun owners. OSHA had originally set out to update workplace safety regulations, but the proposed rules included restrictions that very few gun shops, sporting goods stores, shippers, or ammunition dealers could comply with."

[I believe] Liberals seek to own the government, to populate it, and use it to advance their world agenda. The government is the foundation of it, controlling every aspect of life as much as they can secure.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are interested in getting government out of the way. Conservatives do not want to control people's lives. If you want to do something that's not good for you, go do it, pay the consequences. We're not going to condemn [something] unless your immorality is such that it pervades society and causes collapse.

The Democrat Party has not been able to get anywhere on a gun control agenda because there are too many people in this country who want a gun, either for hunt[ing] or self-defense.

So you say, "Then how did this [OSHA proposal] happen?" Well, some liberals obviously came up with an idea: "All right, if we can't get gun control legislatively, then we gotta take an end route." They were simply going to make it impossible for sporting goods stores and gun owners to have ammunition in stock, because it's an explosive.

Now, you might say, " I thought there had to be a law, and I thought only Congress passed laws." [Actually], Congress passed a laws, [signed by] Nixon, [which] gave us OSHA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and affirmative action. Nixon [was] trying to buy favor with [liberals], it never works. But we never learn from this. [OSHA] can issue restrictions and update new workplace requirements whenever they want.

Now, after this [proposal was publicized, OSHA] has wisely decided to go back to the drawing board:

"Working with the NRA, Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-MT) planned to offer a floor amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill this Wednesday when the House considers this legislation. His amendment would have prohibited federal funds from being used to enforce this OSHA regulation. Such an amendment is no longer necessary since Kristine A. Iverson, the Labor Department's Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, sent Rep. Rehberg a letter, dated July 16, stating that it 'was never the intention of OSHA to block the sale, transportation, or storage of small arms ammunition, and OSHA is taking prompt action to revise' this proposed rule to clarify the purpose of the regulation."

I don't believe it. It may be that some in OSHA didn't know this was happening, and it can be that this woman [didn't] really know. Well, somebody did. It was in there, and now they are going to revise it.

"Also, working with the NRA, Congressman Doug Lamborn (R-CO) gathered signatures from 25 House colleagues for a letter, dated July 11, expressing concerns about this proposed OSHA rule. The letter calling the proposal 'an undue burden on a single industry where facts do not support the need outlined by this proposed rule' and 'not feasible, making it realistically impossible for companies to comply with its tenets.'"

That was the exact purpose. By making it impossible to comply, you have to go out of business. Somebody at OSHA tried to get this done, and they're going to keep trying things like this, because liberals don't want you to have a gun. But once again, the American people found out about this, raised holy hell to their elected representatives, and OSHA had to back down. Whoever did this is not going to stay, "This is why it's a good idea, and this is why it should happen." It was a sneak attack, and this is how they do it. Very hideous, folks.

Well, can't say it's too illuminating or interesting a discussion. Taking out the rhetoric does improve Limbaugh's image a bit: he no longer is arguing against government action to remove asbestos!

As far as the difference between Conservative/Liberal and Republican/Democrat that previous posts allude to, my reading suggests to me that Limbaugh fails to recognize any difference himself.

[decoski]

Ron Paul is the closest thing we've got.

I'm starting to think that there are only about 100 Ron Paul supporters posting thousands of Ron Paul for President postings all over the internet.

[Tladatsi]

Here is this gem from Rush Limbaugh that shows how liberals vs. conservatives in power view the nation and how they want to govern it: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071707/content/01125110.guest.html

OSHA and gun control in one in one daring narrative, oh my gosh, how exciting. Yawn.

The simple fact is both Democrats and Republicans are big government big spenders. The Democrats tax and spend and the Republicans borrow and spend. The Republicans are just as quick to stick government's nose into ordinary peoples lives as the Democrats. So now we can cut to the chase, what do we really want to spend our money on since both parties are going to spend it. Do want higher taxes or bigger depts and deficits?

[Darth Executor]

Whew! I'm either overtired or need glasses. I first read "Ru Paul"!

I just read "psychotic jackass" and I don't need glasses to know I was pretty close.

[SteveF]

I'm not an expert in political philosophy, but I imagine there will be liberals out there who most definitely don't associate themselves with big government. Surely socialist would have been a more appropriate term?

[Darth Executor]

I'm not an expert in political philosophy, but I imagine there will be liberals out there who most definitely don't associate themselves with big government.

Maybe, but then they wouldn't be liberals (using American terms here).

[Jim_Casy]

I'm not an expert in political philosophy, but I imagine there will be liberals out there who most definitely don't associate themselves with big government. Surely socialist would have been a more appropriate term?

:lol: HA! You're a liberal who doesn't want to associate with "big government", so you push it on to socialists - we don't want "big government" either!

I guess we should leave the "big government" label with the neo-conservatives then. ;)

[Tladatsi]

Here is this gem from Rush Limbaugh that shows how liberals vs. conservatives in power view the nation and how they want to govern it: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071707/content/01125110.guest.html

This really IS a good example. Look at the recent mining disaster in Utah, following not too long after the Sago mine disaster. I for one would very much like to have the Federal government use my tax dollars to stick their noses into the "private" business of coal mines to protect the lives American workers. That is what government should do and that is what people like Rush do not want it to do. So since everyone, liberal and conservative, are for big spending and big government, lets just decide what is important to spend government monies on and whether to get those monies from taxes or loans.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I stopped reading there.
Obviously, Rush hasn't heard of the Bush Administration.
Either that, or he's being purposely blind.


I stopped reading as soon as she said Rush Limbuagh.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I'm starting to think that there are only about 100 Ron Paul supporters posting thousands of Ron Paul for President postings all over the internet.

I'v never posted anything about Ron Paul online before now. But I do support him. Because he has something the other Republican candidates dont: common sense.

Although thats why he's almost certainly why he wont get the nomination. I dont get why he's running as a Republican, instead of an indipendent.

[Jimmy Higgins]

:lol: HA! You're a liberal who doesn't want to associate with "big government", so you push it on to socialists - we don't want "big government" either!

I guess we should leave the "big government" label with the neo-conservatives then. ;)Big government. In a nation of 270,000,000 people, yeah... it's going to be big regardless. The question remains, will it be wasteful. IE spending more than it receives in funds, ie do we see a benefit from the spending.

"Big government" is a stupid buzzword somebody came up with to be able to cast aside ideas with a mighty handwave. It's not about big, it's about waste.

And this Bush Admin has created a lot of waste. How much deficit spending, for how little gain?!

[Jim_Casy]

Big government. In a nation of 270,000,000 people, yeah... it's going to be big regardless.
Precisely. The question is not the arbitrary "size" of government, but whether or not it is adequate to fulfil the function of government.

The question remains, will it be wasteful. IE spending more than it receives in funds, ie do we see a benefit from the spending.
In addition to waste or efficiency being a criterion, I'd add appropriateness, i.e. is this particular social need served best with this form of governance or it something smaller (or larger) needed? In other words, we don't need a national body directing where roads are to be built in the backwoods of Kentucky (that can be decided by those living there, even if funded by a national body), but a national body would be appropriate to handle a public good such as health care or poverty or workplace rights and responsibilities , etc.

Like many supposed conservatives, I think the principle of subsidiarity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity#Catholic_social_teaching) aims to respect the dignity of the individual person, as well as acknowledging their inherent autonomy. I differ in that I think it's obvious that many facets of our modern industrialized life can't be adequately addressed by small (or private) bodies, and to promote an argue for an arbitrarily "small government" violates that human dignity just as much as an inhuman bureaucracy. Government is made for people, not people for government.


Nice post!

[Preacher'sKid]

Why would ANYONE quote Limbaugh knowing his history of lying like a drug addict? Which he is BTW...

and wasn't Jesus a socialist?

"Whatsoever you do unto the least of my brothers, that you do unto me"

To the rich man... "Give all your possessions to the poor and follow me"

[TyRockwell]

Ignorant.

[norwegen]

and wasn't Jesus a socialist?No. Jesus preached charity.

[norwegen]

So since everyone, liberal and conservative, are for big spending and big government,Not so. Liberals, Democrats, and some Republicans are for big spending and big government.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not so. Liberals, Democrats, and some Republicans are for big spending and big government.
Such insight, clarity and depth! :ahem:

[Teallaura]

This really IS a good example. Look at the recent mining disaster in Utah, following not too long after the Sago mine disaster. I for one would very much like to have the Federal government use my tax dollars to stick their noses into the "private" business of coal mines to protect the lives American workers. That is what government should do and that is what people like Rush do not want it to do. So since everyone, liberal and conservative, are for big spending and big government, lets just decide what is important to spend government monies on and whether to get those monies from taxes or loans.:ahem: One problem - OSHA (http://www.osha.gov/) doesn't regulate mining. MSHA (http://www.msha.gov/regs/rea/PARTIC.HTM) does. Eliminating OSHA wouldn't have had any effect on mining disasters.

What strikes me as absurd is equating ergonomics with mining safety. The objections to OSHA usually derive from its excessive regulation - chair design shouldn't be a Federal government concern. OSHA has legit interests in industry, construction and maritime work - if it did a better job at those and spent less time worrying about the keyboard in the office fewer people would have issues with it.

[Tladatsi]

:ahem: One problem - OSHA (http://www.osha.gov/) doesn't regulate mining. MSHA (http://www.msha.gov/regs/rea/PARTIC.HTM) does. Eliminating OSHA wouldn't have had any effect on mining disasters.

What strikes me as absurd is equating ergonomics with mining safety. The objections to OSHA usually derive from its excessive regulation - chair design shouldn't be a Federal government concern. OSHA has legit interests in industry, construction and maritime work - if it did a better job at those and spent less time worrying about the keyboard in the office fewer people would have issues with it.

Yes, yes, I am well aware the the MSA handles mines safety and OSHA does not (I have to use MSA approved equipment on my job) just as OSHA does not cover railroads either. BTW, in California, Cal-OSHA handles both mine and non-mine safety. Since very few people are aware of these nuances I simply said OSHA.

Ergonomics is, overall, a tiny part of what OSHA does. Having said that, if OSHA does not look out for ergonomics, who will? It is still a good example of the good that government "big" or "small". I would rather have OSHA enforcing ergonomic standards than watch Bush squander it on his wealthy friends.

[Tladatsi]

Not so. Liberals, Democrats, and some Republicans are for big spending and big government.

Democrats and Liberals say they are in favor big government and put that philosophy into practice. Republicans also favor "big government" in practice, they just talk as if they didn't. It is called hypocricy.

[Philosophickle]

Not so. Liberals, Democrats, and some Republicans are for big spending and big government.

I dunno if we can say that anymore. There are a few Republican's that practice what they preach- Ron Paul and Guliani (who is a sick person) come to mind- but the others have atrocious track records.

[norwegen]

Democrats and Liberals say they are in favor big government and put that philosophy into practice. Republicans also favor "big government" in practice, they just talk as if they didn't. It is called hypocricy.Yes, that's essentially what I said, except that I didn't include all Republicans.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

:ahem: One problem - OSHA (http://www.osha.gov/) doesn't regulate mining. MSHA (http://www.msha.gov/regs/rea/PARTIC.HTM) does. Eliminating OSHA wouldn't have had any effect on mining disasters.

What strikes me as absurd is equating ergonomics with mining safety. The objections to OSHA usually derive from its excessive regulation - chair design shouldn't be a Federal government concern. OSHA has legit interests in industry, construction and maritime work - if it did a better job at those and spent less time worrying about the keyboard in the office fewer people would have issues with it.

Though this isn't the point you were trying to make, this type of nitpicky inefficiency seems to be the MO of regulatory bodies everywhere, which is why crazy libertarians like me tend to object to their existence in general except where absolutely necessary.

My first instinct is to suggest that non-governmental union agencies handle those types of regulations, with enforcement through the threat of a strike, but my experience has been that unions are no more efficient.

[Timothy Leary]

Not so. Liberals, Democrats, and some Republicans are for big spending and big government.

Some Republicans = 95% of Republicans

[TyRockwell]

You: 95% of Republicans?

No! 95% of Republicans are unhappy that the ones in office failed to refrain from spending. The alternative of the Demoncrats is inconceivable, and would be even bigger spending along with tax increases. God Forbid!

[Timothy Leary]

You: 95% of Republicans?

No! 95% of Republicans are unhappy that the ones in office failed to refrain from spending. The alternative of the Demoncrats is unconcientable, and would be even bigger spending along with tax increases. God Forbid!
And that's why y'all elect the same people every year.
Stop drinking the cool-aid.
Republicans only talk the talk during election years.
Then they're worse than their democratic peers - at least the democrats would have us on balanced budgets.
It was, after all, the Republican Congress which did away with that.

Democrats might be tax and spend.
But Republicans are spend, spend, and spend us into bankruptcy.

[Teallaura]

Yes, yes, I am well aware the the MSA handles mines safety and OSHA does not (I have to use MSA approved equipment on my job) just as OSHA does not cover railroads either. BTW, in California, Cal-OSHA handles both mine and non-mine safety. Since very few people are aware of these nuances I simply said OSHA.If you knew you should not have used mining accidents as your example or you should have said MSHA with the explanation that it is a sister body to OSHA. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here but this kind of thing looks like a deliberate exaggeration - which really doesn't help your point.

They are separate agencies under the Labor Department so it's not really a nuance like a separate title would be. I didn't know about Cal-OSHA - thanks.

Ergonomics is, overall, a tiny part of what OSHA does. Having said that, if OSHA does not look out for ergonomics, who will? It is still a good example of the good that government "big" or "small". I would rather have OSHA enforcing ergonomic standards than watch Bush squander it on his wealthy friends.I'd argue that it is an example of poor government. Government cannot serve every purpose - Big Brother states don't survive partially because they make this mistake. Efficient government won't be achieved by piling on responsibilities the private sector can handle. Office workers aren't usually as easily replaced as factory workers (sad but true) - old fashioned complaining will usually work - and finding another job definitely gets the point across.

Wasting money is wasting money no matter what it is wasted on - redundant, wasteful programs are almost as deleterious as corruption (not that I agree with your implication for an instant). This is the sort of thing that has both liberals and conservatives crying foul whenever it's done to them. The policy is fair game - but accusations of cronyism run both ways and should be backed up or not made.

[Teallaura]

Though this isn't the point you were trying to make, this type of nitpicky inefficiency seems to be the MO of regulatory bodies everywhere, which is why crazy libertarians like me tend to object to their existence in general except where absolutely necessary.

My first instinct is to suggest that non-governmental union agencies handle those types of regulations, with enforcement through the threat of a strike, but my experience has been that unions are no more efficient.:ahem: I knew you'd do that - which is why I said 'fewer' rather than 'most'.

There are some sectors that require regulation. And unbridled capitalism isn't terribly efficient, either. I'm pretty well convinced the credit industry needs to be re-regulated yesterday whereas I see zero point in an agency worried about ergonomics. Lenders will abuse the system to the detriment of both the customer and the economy; employers figure out pretty fast that a wrist rest saves them sick leave for doctor visits.

You want a spirited horse but only if you have it bridled. A light hand works - check reins are stupid.

Okay, I'll quit with the horse metaphors - for now... :wink:

[Tickle Me Mercury]

:ahem: I knew you'd do that - which is why I said 'fewer' rather than 'most'.

There are some sectors that require regulation. And unbridled capitalism isn't terribly efficient, either. I'm pretty well convinced the credit industry needs to be re-regulated yesterday whereas I see zero point in an agency worried about ergonomics. Lenders will abuse the system to the detriment of both the customer and the economy; employers figure out pretty fast that a wrist rest saves them sick leave for doctor visits.

You want a spirited horse but only if you have it bridled. A light hand works - check reins are stupid.

Okay, I'll quit with the horse metaphors - for now... :wink:

I figured I had a role to play. =)

Of course, in some instances we may just be talking past each other. A lot of what the government needs to do in the credit industry, for example, you might call regulation, whereas I think a lot of creditors are just outright committing fraud. So the government should be throwing a lot of those goons in jail.

I don't think the government has no business in the private sector, I just have this thing about reexamining and re-justifying things in a way that won't set what I think to be dangerous precedents. But you know me. I'm all deontological and stuff.

[Teallaura]

I figured I had a role to play. =)

Of course, in some instances we may just be talking past each other. A lot of what the government needs to do in the credit industry, for example, you might call regulation, whereas I think a lot of creditors are just outright committing fraud. So the government should be throwing a lot of those goons in jail.Unfortunately, a lot of the crap they pull is legal - that needs to be changed. Fixed rates should really be fixed - not 'fixed' for the next 15 days. Universal default needs to go bye-bye - no double penalizing people. Et al.

Then we get to throw the goons in jail! :grin:

I don't think the government has no business in the private sector, I just have this thing about reexamining and re-justifying things in a way that won't set what I think to be dangerous precedents.I'm good with that.

But you know me. I'm all deontological and stuff.Maybe you should see an orthodontist about that? :uneasy:

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Unfortunately, a lot of the crap they pull is legal - that needs to be changed. Fixed rates should really be fixed - not 'fixed' for the next 15 days. Universal default needs to go bye-bye - no double penalizing people. Et al.

Then we get to throw the goons in jail! :grin:

I'm good with that.

Maybe you should see an orthodontist about that? :uneasy:

So long as we throw the thieves in jail, we're on the same page.

[Preacher'sKid]

The difference between libs and conservatives...

Liberals believe in doing things for the greater good of society...

Conservatism has always been an attempt to justify childish selfishness...



"Although it may not be true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

--John Stuart Mill

[Tickle Me Mercury]

The difference between libs and conservatives...

Liberals believe in doing things for the greater good of society...

Conservatism has always been an attempt to justify childish selfishness...



"Although it may not be true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

--John Stuart Mill

Totally. And "Conservative" most assuredly had the same meaning in England c. 1850 as it does in America today!

[PolarBeer]

The difference between libs and conservatives...

Liberals believe in doing things for the greater good of society...

Conservatism has always been an attempt to justify childish selfishness...



"Although it may not be true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

--John Stuart Mill

The problem (for Liberals) being that firstly, people don't want to lose something they have "for the greater good." Someone who has piles of money doesn't always want to give some to people who have no money. I'd suggest they should, but does that mean that they have to?

It also raises that eternal question - who decides what "the greater good" is? I'm over in the UK, and can think of a number of things Tony Blair did for "the greater good" that I thought were complete nonsense.

Also, if you're giving a fair definition of liberalism, you should give a fair definition of conservatism - at it's roots, it's a broad set of philosophies that favours tradition and gradual change.

pb

[norwegen]

I read the whole thing but I didn't see where he actually says what the problem is exactly - OSHA restrictions are mentioned but no specifics, that's odd and very sloppy (if I'm right, I'm a bit sleepy though).Limbaugh mentions a specific: an "end route" towards gun control, an attempted restriction on the sale of ammunition. The gist is that liberalism is malignant.

The man waxes poetic. A free society best decays when opposition emerges from within.

[Tladatsi]

If you knew you should not have used mining accidents as your example or you should have said MSHA with the explanation that it is a sister body to OSHA. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here but this kind of thing looks like a deliberate exaggeration - which really doesn't help your point.

They are separate agencies under the Labor Department so it's not really a nuance like a separate title would be. I didn't know about Cal-OSHA - thanks.

I would point out that the actual name of the program is the Division of Occupational Safety & Health, part of the Department of Industrial Relations. However it is universally called "Cal-OSHA".

I'd argue that it is an example of poor government. Government cannot serve every purpose - Big Brother states don't survive partially because they make this mistake. Efficient government won't be achieved by piling on responsibilities the private sector can handle. Office workers aren't usually as easily replaced as factory workers (sad but true) - old fashioned complaining will usually work - and finding another job definitely gets the point across.

Wasting money is wasting money no matter what it is wasted on - redundant, wasteful programs are almost as deleterious as corruption (not that I agree with your implication for an instant). This is the sort of thing that has both liberals and conservatives crying foul whenever it's done to them. The policy is fair game - but accusations of cronyism run both ways and should be backed up or not made.

OSHA (and related organizations) have demonstrably reduced work place mortality and morbidity. I could cite reduced incidents of lung cancer among chromate manufacturing workers or trench collapse deaths but I will give a personal example instead.

Before Methuselah was born, I worked at a facility where three men died. They were going into a sewer to do some work. They had shut off the pump and drained the line. One went in without a harnesses, a retrieval line, air monitoring equipment, SCBA, or just about any other required piece of equipment (I don't know if they had any confined space training but I doubt it). They also did not lock- out the pump nor tag-out the switch. So some fellow comes into the control room and sees that the pump is off and turns it on. The first fellows drops with the hydrogen sulfide hits him. His friends jumps in to see what is wrong and he drops. A third man puts his head into the hole opening (which is actually an invisible geyser of hydrogen sulfide at this point) to investigate. The first two were DOA and the third spent the rest of his in a vegetative state. The foreman went to jail (manslaughter) and the wrongful death lawsuits went on for many years.

Those deaths were completely preventable had their employer followed the appropriate OSHA standards.

It is possible to pick and choose where occupational standards are poorly or inconsistently or trivially applied but overall they have save many lives. In my book, there is no better government function than to save peoples lives.

[Pilgrim]

The insidious advance of liberalism...oooo...spooky. But here's something think about, in the last 40 years only 12 of have seen a Democratic administration and 4 of those saw a Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher in the oval office. If you consider that there was a republican controlled congress and senate during much of Clinton's term that means that the conservatives have had over 30 years of giving it their best effort. If there's anything insidious going on it can't be from the liberal side, they haven't had enough time at the wheel.

[norwegen]

the conservatives have had over 30 years of giving it their best effort.To be sure, it means that the Republicans were in control.

And not even a conservative president can stop a demand for hand-outs once they start. Not even a conservative president can cure a cancer.

[Teallaura]

I would point out that the actual name of the program is the Division of Occupational Safety & Health, part of the Department of Industrial Relations. However it is universally called "Cal-OSHA".



OSHA (and related organizations) have demonstrably reduced work place mortality and morbidity. I could cite reduced incidents of lung cancer among chromate manufacturing workers or trench collapse deaths but I will give a personal example instead.

Before Methuselah was born, I worked at a facility where three men died. They were going into a sewer to do some work. They had shut off the pump and drained the line. One went in without a harnesses, a retrieval line, air monitoring equipment, SCBA, or just about any other required piece of equipment (I don't know if they had any confined space training but I doubt it). They also did not lock- out the pump nor tag-out the switch. So some fellow comes into the control room and sees that the pump is off and turns it on. The first fellows drops with the hydrogen sulfide hits him. His friends jumps in to see what is wrong and he drops. A third man puts his head into the hole opening (which is actually an invisible geyser of hydrogen sulfide at this point) to investigate. The first two were DOA and the third spent the rest of his in a vegetative state. The foreman went to jail (manslaughter) and the wrongful death lawsuits went on for many years.

Those deaths were completely preventable had their employer followed the appropriate OSHA standards.

It is possible to pick and choose where occupational standards are poorly or inconsistently or trivially applied but overall they have save many lives. In my book, there is no better government function than to save peoples lives.Are you always this prone to exaggeration? I never said there was no place for regulation nor did I argue that all regulation amounted to poor government - but excessive and unnecessary regulation created by trying to have government do everything is poor governance.

Regulating industrial safety standards to prevent workplace death or dismemberment - no problem at all. Needs better enforcement in my opinion. Regulating keyboard design so no one gets carpal tunnel - silly and wasteful. The private sector can and will handle this and no one dies if they don't (I've had carpal tunnel - it's not the end of the world - hurts though.)

The Jack of All Trades approach to regulation is part of the problem we have in enforcing the necessary regulations. Congress will only appropriate so much money to the Labor Department for oversight. The more things it oversees the fewer dollars it has to oversee any given one (although Congress will make these allocations by program the net effect is the same). I'd much rather OSHA make sure that longshoremen don't get killed than have OSHA worrying that I might get a staple in my thumb.

It's called 'setting priorities' and is a necessary function of good governance.

[decoski]

And that's why y'all elect the same people every year.
Stop drinking the cool-aid.
Republicans only talk the talk during election years.
Then they're worse than their democratic peers - at least the democrats would have us on balanced budgets.
It was, after all, the Republican Congress which did away with that.

Democrats might be tax and spend.
But Republicans are spend, spend, and spend us into bankruptcy.

Then why are you voting for McCain? If anything, he certainly will continue spending on our military overseas. At least you would have been consistent if you would have stuck with Ron Paul.

[Teallaura]

2008 - 1981 = 27

During which government was divided most of that time.

:brood: Let's not exaggerate, shall we?

[Tladatsi]

This gets us right back to the start. Government is neither good nor bad, it is a tool that can be used for good or bad. Small government that is bad is not better than big government that is good. Forget the size, does it do good? I think that the government can do good and where it can it should.

Are you always this prone to exaggeration? I never said there was no place for regulation nor did I argue that all regulation amounted to poor government - but excessive and unnecessary regulation created by trying to have government do everything is poor governance.

Regulating industrial safety standards to prevent workplace death or dismemberment - no problem at all. Needs better enforcement in my opinion. Regulating keyboard design so no one gets carpal tunnel - silly and wasteful. The private sector can and will handle this and no one dies if they don't (I've had carpal tunnel - it's not the end of the world - hurts though.)

The Jack of All Trades approach to regulation is part of the problem we have in enforcing the necessary regulations. Congress will only appropriate so much money to the Labor Department for oversight. The more things it oversees the fewer dollars it has to oversee any given one (although Congress will make these allocations by program the net effect is the same). I'd much rather OSHA make sure that longshoremen don't get killed than have OSHA worrying that I might get a staple in my thumb.

It's called 'setting priorities' and is a necessary function of good governance.

[norwegen]

This gets us right back to the start. Government is neither good nor bad, it is a tool that can be used for good or bad. Small government that is bad is not better than big government that is good. Forget the size, does it do good? I think that the government can do good and where it can it should.Big government is never good.

True, government has no heart; it's neither good nor evil. However, it can be oppressive (as a sweltering heat can be). When evil acts upon government (such as the leeches and thieves who create and fatten welfare states), government becomes oppressive. Enslavement of the productive is oppressive, and it becomes increasingly oppressive as government grows.

Big government feeds on evil; it feeds on liberalism.

[Pilgrim]

2008 - 1981 = 27

During which government was divided most of that time.

:brood: Let's not exaggerate, shall we?

To whom is that directed?

[RumTumTugger]

The insidious advance of liberalism...oooo...spooky. But here's something think about, in the last 40 years only 12 of have seen a Democratic administration and 4 of those saw a Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher in the oval office. If you consider that there was a republican controlled congress and senate during much of Clinton's term that means that the conservatives have had over 30 years of giving it their best effort. If there's anything insidious going on it can't be from the liberal side, they haven't had enough time at the wheel.

au contraire PIlgrim the liberals(democrats) were in power before Regan got elected. we had 50 years before then of liberal government entitlements being enacted.

The republicans were fighting 50 years of mismanagement. Then the most recent Republicans forgot what got Regan elected so now we have the mismangers in again.

Folks the last election was not about whether conservative lesser government ideas worked or not it was about the failure of those who were elected on the bases that they were for less government didn't follow through with their promises. the Democrats had better realize that before they make the mistake of trying to take us back to 50 years ago

[Pilgrim]

au contraire PIlgrim the liberals(democrats) were in power before Regan got elected. we had 50 years before then of liberal government entitlements being enacted. the republicans were fighting 50 years of mismangement. is it any wonder we haven't seen the change yet.

Yeah yeah, I get it, anything wrong is the dems faults. The republicans have only ever inherited problems never caused any. I get it.

The republicans were fighting 50 years of mismanagement. Then the most recent Republicans forgot what got Regan elected so now we have the mismangers in again.

Folks the last election was not about whether conservative lesser government ideas worked or not it was about the failure of those who were elected on the bases that they were for less government didn't follow through with their promises. the Democrats had better realize that before they make the mistake of trying to take us back to 50 years ago

You mean the 50 years ago when a republican was president? Those 50 years ago? In the past 55 years there have only been 4 democratic administrations (Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton). The conservatives have spent far more time in office. You can't simply wave off the issues of the conservative administrations with a "well they just inherited it all." It doesn't wash when you do the math. It is interesting how anything good is never argued to be an inherited thing, then it's just the hard work of the candidates you like. Anything bad though...oh well, they inherited that from those insidious liberals.

[RumTumTugger]

Yeah yeah, I get it, anything wrong is the dems faults. The republicans have only ever inherited problems never caused any. I get it.

Pilgrim I have to apologize I'd forgotten to finish my thought before posting and was in the middle of editing my previous post to finish my thought when you saw it and posted this. I want the folks to know that Pilgrim was not just taking one thing out of my whole post to reply to I was editing right after I noticed i hadnt' completed my thought.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

au contraire PIlgrim the liberals(democrats) were in power before Regan got elected. we had 50 years before then of liberal government entitlements being enacted. the republicans were fighting 50 years of mismangement. is it any wonder we haven't seen the change yet.

I do agree that the decades of constantly expanding entitlement programs are a core of the economic issues here, but I can't say that having 27 years isn't enough time to get the ball rolling on a fix.

A big problem, I think, is that much of the Republican Party has been doing lip service to conservative economic issues but not getting anything done about them. Reagan talked a lot about smaller government, but then he spent us into debt and wanted to build space lasers. Bush Jr. has done a lot of the same. Most of my friends who are long time conservatives have abandon their support for his administration for that.

edit: and I missed your edit as well.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Folks the last election was not about whether conservative lesser government ideas worked or not it was about the failure of those who were elected on the bases that they were for less government didn't follow through with their promises. the Democrats had better realize that before they make the mistake of trying to take us back to 50 years ago
I think Obama centering his message on "change" would seem to indicate that his group "gets it".

The Republicans were fired in 2006. Don't think the public is going to be so quick in rehiring them again. The Republicans failed on just about every single one of their policies, from less spending to no nation building to immigration reform.

[norwegen]

Yeah yeah, I get it, anything wrong is the dems faults.What is the premise of the Democratic Party? Democracy?

[norwegen]

I do agree that the decades of constantly expanding entitlement programs are a core of the economic issues here, but I can't say that having 27 years isn't enough time to get the ball rolling on a fix.

A big problem, I think, is that much of the Republican Party has been doing lip service to conservative economic issues but not getting anything done about them. Reagan talked a lot about smaller government, but then he spent us into debt and wanted to build space lasers. Bush Jr. has done a lot of the same. Most of my friends who are long time conservatives have abandon their support for his administration for that.

edit: and I missed your edit as well.Very true. The Republican Party places more stock in its leftward movement than it it does in its conservative constituency.

[RumTumTugger]

I think Obama centering his message on "change" would seem to indicate that his group "gets it".

The Republicans were fired in 2006. Don't think the public is going to be so quick in rehiring them again. The Republicans failed on just about every single one of their policies, from less spending to no nation building to immigration reform.

No but it won't be for the reason you and the secular progressive think. It will be because once bitten twice shy. Although I for one will try to give my party the message it needs, That it should not go the way Obama and Hillary and the other Democrat Party frontrunners are going; but to get back to the Regan message of empowering the American people to be their own means of making a better world for all not expecting the government to do that.

[Jimmy Higgins]

No but it won't be for the reason you and the secular progressive think. It will be because once bitten twice shy. Although I for one will try to give my party the message it needs, That it should not go the way Obama and Hillary and the other Democrat Party frontrunners are going; but to get back to the Regan message of empowering the American people to be their own means of making a better world for all not expecting the government to do that.Well, the US public didn't invade Iraq... that was the Bush Admin doing that. The US public is also powerless when it comes to deflecting the humongous inertia that is the oil machine by developing newer technologies to help the US stabilize the energy crunch we are starting to feel as China and India develop and start sucking a large amount of oil/gas themselves. And health care... it costs a fortune running our system the way we run it.

These are large infrastructure changes that are necessary. That will involve the government. And when it comes to spending less, immigration reform, social security reform (something they did manage under Reagan), anything short of mere tax cuts, this Administration and the Republican party failed to produce results. That's why they were fired. And will remain fired for a while.

[TyRockwell]

What is the premise of the Democratic Party? Democracy?

It is that 50.1 % of the vote can take away your rights and property. Majority rule, or mob rule, is all the same with property rights violators, who'll work to get the Constitution 'alive and breathing,' so they can change it into the representation of a beast.

[TyRockwell]

The US public is also powerless when it comes to deflecting the humongous inertia that is the oil machine by developing newer technologies to help the US stabilize the energy crunch we are starting to feel as China and India develop and start sucking a large amount of oil/gas themselves

The US public has wanted to get free of foreign oil dependency ever since Carter got the price of oil escalating, but The DEMOCRATS in Congress would rather hug trees in the artic wasteland than allow OUR oil to be produced from there.

[Jimmy Higgins]

The US public is also powerless when it comes to deflecting the humongous inertia that is the oil machine by developing newer technologies to help the US stabilize the energy crunch we are starting to feel as China and India develop and start sucking a large amount of oil/gas themselves

The US public has wanted to get free of foreign oil dependency ever since Carter got the price of oil escalating, but The DEMOCRATS in Congress would rather hug trees in the artic wasteland than allow OUR oil to be produced from there.Dude, ANWR is not the solution to oil dependency. The US is the world's 3rd largest producer of oil...(in fact, North America is competitive with the Middle East as far as oil production) yet we still blow the world away as being the leading importer of it. Oil production isn't the problem, it's the use.

[Ryokan]

Dude, ANWR is not the solution to oil dependency. The US is the world's 3rd largest producer of oil...(in fact, North America is competitive with the Middle East as far as oil production) yet we still blow the world away as being the leading importer of it. Oil production isn't the problem, it's the use.

Exactly. We need to find non oil energy sources, not more oil, if we want to be oil independant.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Exactly. We need to find non oil energy sources, not more oil, if we want to be oil independant.I so totally agree with you agreeing with me. :teeth:

[norwegen]

What is the premise of the Democratic Party? Democracy?

It is that 50.1 % of the vote can take away your rights and property. Majority rule, or mob rule, is all the same with property rights violators, who'll work to get the Constitution 'alive and breathing,' so they can change it into the representation of a beast.Precisely. The republic that the United States is has always been anethema to democracy, and a democracy is exactly the government the Democrats are trying to establish. The Democratic Party's hatred of their constitution isn't just in the violation of proerty rights, but in a number of other areas as well, such as attempts to eliminate the electoral college (as if the Constitution guarantees anyone a right to vote) and the introduction of arms restrictions, such as the National Firearms Act and the Federal Firearms Act (both products of a Democratic president and Congress).

The Democratic Party is always wrong. It's a party that will always pander to the dumb masses, which makes liberals very happy. Liberalism's advance is indeed insidious. Sadly, this advance is inevitable.

[TyRockwell]

The Democratic Party is always wrong. It's a party that will always pander to the dumb masses, which makes liberals very happy. Liberalism's advance is indeed insidious. Sadly, this advance is inevitable.

I disagree. "Be sober, be vigilant, for your adversary, the devil goes about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour."

He can't devour the sober and vigilant who take their stand to resist him firmly in the faith. He will flee if we do.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Precisely. The republic that the United States is has always been anethema to democracy, and a democracy is exactly the government the Democrats are trying to establish. The Democratic Party's hatred of their constitution isn't just in the violation of proerty rights, but in a number of other areas as well, such as attempts to eliminate the electoral college (as if the Constitution guarantees anyone a right to vote) and the introduction of arms restrictions, such as the National Firearms Act and the Federal Firearms Act (both products of a Democratic president and Congress).

The Democratic Party is always wrong. It's a party that will always pander to the dumb masses, which makes liberals very happy. Liberalism's advance is indeed insidious. Sadly, this advance is inevitable.This person clearly got the industrial grade partisan blinders. Must of been on sale, those things cost a fortune.

[norwegen]

I disagree. "Be sober, be vigilant, for your adversary, the devil goes about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour."

He can't devour the sober and vigilant who take their stand to resist him firmly in the faith. He will flee if we do.In burgeoning "Peoples" movements, the sober and vigilant are the minority.

[norwegen]

This person clearly got the industrial grade partisan blinders. Must of been on sale, those things cost a fortune.You misspelled have.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Dude, ANWR is not the solution to oil dependency. The US is the world's 3rd largest producer of oil...(in fact, North America is competitive with the Middle East as far as oil production) yet we still blow the world away as being the leading importer of it. Oil production isn't the problem, it's the use.

But that will ultimately be up to the people to fix, and the best way to do that is consumer advocacy. Markets invariably respond to demands, they don't create them (assuming non-nefarious methods here, of course).

There's a much greater availailibilty now in America of compact, subcompact, and city-cars. Because people are waking up to the fact that the oil won't last forever, and before it runs out it's gong to get expensive.

SMART (http://www.smartusa.com/) cars will be available within the month. Will you be getting one? Or how about the soon to be revamped Fiat 500 (http://www.fiat500.com/eng/) or Isetta (http://deus-ex-machine.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-bmw-isetta.html)? If high concept trends aren't your thing, there is the Mini, Fit, Aveo, Versa, Focus, Accent, and my favorite, the Yaris.

If you think that there's no demand in this country for highly efficient cars, just look at the sales figures for the Prius, or better yet, drive any tiny car around town, and see what people say.

[hamandcheese]

This thread would be better titled as "the insidious advance of progressivism". Traditionally liberalism was about resisting fascism, and promoting civil rights, and human equality (not economical equality as the socialist progressives think). I am a classical liberal.

It should be added that the threat of progressives is mirrored on the right by progressive conservatives, like Bush, the neo-conservatives, and what are essentially liberal spenders and war advocates who aren't democrats because they like free-market and dislike gun control.

[Jimmy Higgins]

But that will ultimately be up to the people to fix, and the best way to do that is consumer advocacy. Markets invariably respond to demands, they don't create them (assuming non-nefarious methods here, of course).

There's a much greater availailibilty now in America of compact, subcompact, and city-cars. Because people are waking up to the fact that the oil won't last forever, and before it runs out it's gong to get expensive.Actually,all they noticed was the increasing gasoline prices.

SMART (http://www.smartusa.com/) cars will be available within the month. Will you be getting one? "Engineering and testing continues to take place on the vehicle that will be produced for the United States. The vehicle is designed to achieve 40 city/45 highway mpg according to 2007 EPA standards and 33 city/41 highway mpg according to 2008 EPA standards."
No. I won't be getting one. My Honda Insight that I bought in 2001 is still superior to these things. It's much bigger for storage, almost a 25% larger tank, made by Honda. I'm hoping to get at least to 200,000 miles in my Insight. I'm at 112,000 right now.

Or how about the soon to be revamped Fiat 500 (http://www.fiat500.com/eng/) or Isetta (http://deus-ex-machine.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-bmw-isetta.html)? If high concept trends aren't your thing, there is the Mini, Fit, Aveo, Versa, Focus, Accent, and my favorite, the Yaris. HAW! The Focus gets 35 mpg. Woah... blow me down. I've been supporting Hybrid car technology for 6.5 years now.

If you think that there's no demand in this country for highly efficient cars, just look at the sales figures for the Prius, or better yet, drive any tiny car around town, and see what people say.There was a much larger demand for wasteful vehicles like H2's and H3's. It's too bad that the US wasn't more forward thinking with CAFE standards.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Actually,all they noticed was the increasing gasoline prices.

Well, really, neither of us can say what everyone else noticed, I suppose.

"Engineering and testing continues to take place on the vehicle that will be produced for the United States. The vehicle is designed to achieve 40 city/45 highway mpg according to 2007 EPA standards and 33 city/41 highway mpg according to 2008 EPA standards."
No. I won't be getting one. My Honda Insight that I bought in 2001 is still superior to these things. It's much bigger for storage, almost a 25% larger tank, made by Honda. I'm hoping to get at least to 200,000 miles in my Insight. I'm at 112,000 right now.

Word on the street is that the Insight was the best example of hybrid technology at the time (and still is). Then maybe I should ask whether or not you'll be looking at the Hypercar when it's finally available?

HAW! The Focus gets 35 mpg. Woah... blow me down. I've been supporting Hybrid car technology for 6.5 years now.

Well, you can't quite compare the two technologies. My point was that there is a whole host of affordable alternatives to gas guzzlers out there.

There was a much larger demand for wasteful vehicles like H2's and H3's. It's too bad that the US wasn't more forward thinking with CAFE standards.

There was but I think that's changing.

[Ryokan]

Jimmy, why did you get a Insight vs. Prius? I've been thinking about getting a civic hybrid or a prius this year, and wondered if there was some factor there I am unaware of? Also, additionally, have you gotten decent mileage with them? I like the gadgetiness and greeness of the hybrids, but I am hoping to get 40-50 miles gallon on average, and different people have told me different things on that. If it matters, like most Cincinnatians I drive mostly highway. Thanks for your help!

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Jimmy, why did you get a Insight vs. Prius? I've been thinking about getting a civic hybrid or a prius this year, and wondered if there was some factor there I am unaware of? Also, additionally, have you gotten decent mileage with them? I like the gadgetiness and greeness of the hybrids, but I am hoping to get 40-50 miles gallon on average, and different people have told me different things on that. If it matters, like most Cincinnatians I drive mostly highway. Thanks for your help!

I believe that for most hybrids, the city mileage is actually higher than the highway mileage.

Also, keep in mind, that the way you drive can really effect the mileage. If I take my car on the NJ Pike or Parkway and do 80-85 the whole time, I'm well past the highest point of efficiency for the vehicle, so I won't get that 40-45 miles per gallon. If i drive 60-65 in the slow lane and accelerate smoothly instead of aggressively, there's a noticeable difference in the fuel used.

[Pilgrim]

I do agree that the decades of constantly expanding entitlement programs are a core of the economic issues here, but I can't say that having 27 years isn't enough time to get the ball rolling on a fix.

A big problem, I think, is that much of the Republican Party has been doing lip service to conservative economic issues but not getting anything done about them. Reagan talked a lot about smaller government, but then he spent us into debt and wanted to build space lasers. Bush Jr. has done a lot of the same. Most of my friends who are long time conservatives have abandon their support for his administration for that.

edit: and I missed your edit as well.

Exactly, they talk about small government but they have been the party at the helm during the biggest government expansions. Explain that away.

[Pilgrim]

No but it won't be for the reason you and the secular progressive think. It will be because once bitten twice shy. Although I for one will try to give my party the message it needs, That it should not go the way Obama and Hillary and the other Democrat Party frontrunners are going; but to get back to the Regan message of empowering the American people to be their own means of making a better world for all not expecting the government to do that.

Unless of course you're Enron right? Then look to the government to give you all kinds of hand outs in no bid contracts. Pay to play baby, pay to play.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Unless of course you're Enron right? Then look to the government to give you all kinds of hand outs in no bid contracts. Pay to play baby, pay to play.

That's a huge concern I have. Things like the the Enron debacle are why people cringe when someone talks about "The Free Market" or Capitalism, because the only examples we have are of slimy politicians who pander to people with those terms meanwhile they're engaging in corporate welfare and handouts.

And I think it's a shame that people who do value the Market as a force for good only have had people like this to be it's "example."

[norwegen]

Unless of course you're Enron right? Then look to the government to give you all kinds of hand outs in no bid contracts. Pay to play baby, pay to play.In the US, no-bid contracts are legal.

Corruption among corporations is punishable, in Enron's case by dissolution of companies and judgments against officers. Corruption among the parasite class is awarded with government checks.

Liberalism is malignant.

[Pilgrim]

In the US, no-bid contracts are legal.

But not always ethical. And they are illegal when they are fraudulent.

Corruption among corporations is punishable, in Enron's case by dissolution of companies and judgments against officers. Corruption among the parasite class is awarded with government checks.

Liberalism is malignant.


There's a lot I would like to say but I've just realized that your partisan bias has taken you beyond any ability to talk about these things rationally so I'll just let you stew in your anger. No point having a conversation with you since apparently you already know it all.

I will say this, by most standards of folk here I would be considered a liberal. Fair enough, I'll take that label. Personally I call myself a progressive evangelical. Are you really using so broad a brush stroke that you would call me malignant? If you are I take exception to that and would be willing to bet that even though many folks here including the other admins disagree with my politics and theology they would take exception to that characterization as well. Maybe you want to settle down a bit and speak with a bit more thought?

[Ryokan]

You are hardly malignant, Pilgrim, but you can't be progessive anything without being a liberal in my mind.

[historic salve]

And I think it's a shame that people who do value the Market as a force for good only have had people like this to be it's "example."
They're not the only examples, they're just the only ones that get any news time.

[Ryokan]

That's capitalisms problem. When it works it is a quiet, boring, day to day thing. When it doesn't it is deafening.

[norwegen]

There's a lot I would like to say but I've just realized that your partisan bias has taken you beyond any ability to talk about these things rationally so I'll just let you stew in your anger. No point having a conversation with you since apparently you already know it all.

I will say this, by most standards of folk here I would be considered a liberal. Fair enough, I'll take that label. Personally I call myself a progressive evangelical. Are you really using so broad a brush stroke that you would call me malignant? If you are I take exception to that and would be willing to bet that even though many folks here including the other admins disagree with my politics and theology they would take exception to that characterization as well. Maybe you want to settle down a bit and speak with a bit more thought?I'm agreeing with the OP. Insidious Advance is synonymous with Malignant.

My apologies if I sound harsh, Pilgrim. I wish not to characterize you or any other individual. Only the movement. Americans cannot argue that as their country moves more and more to the left, it divests itself more and more of its constitution, of the values it was founded on.

Populism in any of its flavors is deceptively attractive, and I don't blame liberals in general for falling for it. I blame liberal politicians first, those who insulate themselves from the disparities in wealth and power that they attempt to close . Then I would blame those who actually contribute to that closure. That is all.

Again, my apologies.

[TyRockwell]

And I think it's a shame that people who do value the Market as a force for good only have had people like this (Enron, and no bid contracts) to be it's "example."

Actually, there are millions of good examples of the free market that are positive. The ones that get the headlines are the few bad apples.

[Jim_Casy]

Americans cannot argue that as their country moves more and more to the left, it divests itself more and more of its constitution, of the values it was founded on.
I argue both and I'm an American. We must have different definitions of "left" is you think this country is moving "more and more to the left". It's clear from anyone within the Democratic Party that they've been moving to the right to mimic what they see as effective strategies devised by Republicans; Democrats are on the defense, and it's only been within the last couple of years that any Democratic operatives have seriously questioned the abandonment of liberal and progressive agendas.

And, if the country did move to the left, it wouldn't be divesting itself of the Constitution; that's a ridiculous and unsupported assertion.

I blame liberal politicians first, those who insulate themselves from the disparities in wealth and power that they attempt to close . Then I would blame those who actually contribute to that closure.
I distrust any politician who insulates themselves from the disparities in wealth and power that splitting this country - such a politician has no basis to claim to be a representative.

As for those politicians who attempt to close the gap, I applaud the (supposed) end but I'm skeptical of the means.

[Pilgrim]

You are hardly malignant, Pilgrim, but you can't be progessive anything without being a liberal in my mind.

Fortunately the rest of the world doesn't reside in your mind then isn't it. But to be fair, I said I'd take the label of liberal as most here define it.

[Pilgrim]

I'm agreeing with the OP. Insidious Advance is synonymous with Malignant.

My apologies if I sound harsh, Pilgrim. I wish not to characterize you or any other individual. Only the movement. Americans cannot argue that as their country moves more and more to the left, it divests itself more and more of its constitution, of the values it was founded on.

Populism in any of its flavors is deceptively attractive, and I don't blame liberals in general for falling for it. I blame liberal politicians first, those who insulate themselves from the disparities in wealth and power that they attempt to close . Then I would blame those who actually contribute to that closure. That is all.

Again, my apologies.

I forget who said it but it was right on: there is no one on the left in the US, only right wingers and slightly less right wingers.

[Ryokan]

Fortunately the rest of the world doesn't reside in your mind then isn't it. But to be fair, I said I'd take the label of liberal as most here define it.

In most countries liberal means right wing. Here it means left. Progressive ideals are leftist ones. Not bad, just a reality. You certainly are left of center for America, and most of the Anglo-American world. You would be a centrist in Europe, if not a righty, but then you could hardly claim to be a progressve there. Its all on a scale, but progressive ideas are left wing ones where ever you are, and in the US liberal is the short hand for all things left.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Word on the street is that the Insight was the best example of hybrid technology at the time (and still is). Then maybe I should ask whether or not you'll be looking at the Hypercar when it's finally available?It was and still is. The only thing that held the Insight back was that it was a two seater. And if you were an audiophile, you needed to get better speakers.

As for a hypercar, Honda is putting out a Hydrogen fuel cell car this year. However, due to the lack of hydrogen stations, this release is very limited and only in Southern Cal. Other car companies are still racing to put hybrids or fake hybrids onto the road and Honda has a hydrogen cell car on the road already. It is pathetic the state of the American auto industry. I'll be waiting to see how the next generation goes. As far as I'm concerned, I'm taking my car as far as it can go.

Well, you can't quite compare the two technologies. My point was that there is a whole host of affordable alternatives to gas guzzlers out there.Alternative to gas guzzlers, yes. However, I'm looking for something that will make the gasoline costs seem inconsequential. You see, I pay about $1.50 for a gallon of gas compared to someone who gets about 35 mpg (lifetime) on their car. I like that. If the battery on my car holds to 200,000 miles, I'll have saved approximately $8000 in gasoline costs! 35 mpg is a joke when we know so much better is available.

There was but I think that's changing.Nothing like people being way behind the curve,

[Jimmy Higgins]

Fortunately the rest of the world doesn't reside in your mind then isn't it. But to be fair, I said I'd take the label of liberal as most here define it.
For over two decades the right-wing media has successfully turned the term "liberal" into a slur. After the 7 years we've had under this Administration, easily one of the most ineffective ever in our history, possibly the worst ever, I find it funny how their supporters will say "liberalism" is malignant. Cancer can be malignant. Cancer kills. So they are saying liberalism kills America. Last time I checked, liberalism didn't get us into Iraq. Liberalism didn't ignore the terrorism threat before 9/11. That was cold war neo-conservatism that did that.

People saying liberalism is malignant. That's just ignorant and stupid and shows how well the right-wing media is at brain washing people into believing just about anything.

[TyRockwell]

It's clear from anyone within the Democratic Party that they've been moving to the right to mimic what they see as effective strategies devised by Republicans; Democrats are on the defense, and it's only been within the last couple of years that any Democratic operatives have seriously questioned the abandonment of liberal and progressive agendas.

The Democrats are in no way abandoning their leftism. They are agenda driven. They are trying to mask it in less leftist rhetoric, but they want to impose a socialist redistributive tyranny on the people, in order to supposedly 'equalize' the haves' and the 'have nots.' It is all a subterfuge to make people dependent on them, the government, instead of on God. God forbid it!

[TyRockwell]

That's just ignorant and stupid

Jimmy, you are an atheist and a socialist. Now, that is the definition of ignorant and stupid.

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's just ignorant and stupid

Jimmy, you are an atheist and a socialist. Now, that is the definition of ignorant and stupid.Wow. That's just deep. By the way, I'm not really a socialist. I mean I may be what you or people such as yourself consider a socialist, but that'd just be a claim of ignorance. I could call you a stick of butter, doesn't make it so. That you are forced to use broad labeling in order to attempt to denigrate others speaks volumes as to your own intelligence.

You can feel free to think I'm stupid, but get your record straight before you do so.

[Pilgrim]

It's clear from anyone within the Democratic Party that they've been moving to the right to mimic what they see as effective strategies devised by Republicans; Democrats are on the defense, and it's only been within the last couple of years that any Democratic operatives have seriously questioned the abandonment of liberal and progressive agendas.

The Democrats are in no way abandoning their leftism. They are agenda driven. They are trying to mask it in less leftist rhetoric, but they want to impose a socialist redistributive tyranny on the people, in order to supposedly 'equalize' the haves' and the 'have nots.' It is all a subterfuge to make people dependent on them, the government, instead of on God. God forbid it!

And yet, it's the republicans who have given us big and intrusive government. go figure.

[TyRockwell]

You: And yet, it's the republicans who have given us big and intrusive government. go figure.

With Democrats it would be even worse on the size and expense of government, and they would add to that the economic drags of higher taxes. Then, they'd try to 'help' more people.

[Jimmy Higgins]

And yet, it's the republicans who have given us big and intrusive government. go figure.

With Democrats it would be even worse on the size and expense of government, and they would add to that the economic drags of higher taxes. Then, they'd try to 'help' more people.Geesh, leave some Flavor-aid for the rest of your ilk. We survived Clinton without the federal government getting so expansive. And all this complaining about taxes when the Bush admin is spending our future tax dollars (which is being lent to us by the Chinese).

You clearly aren't putting any thoughts behind you ideology.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

You: And yet, it's the republicans who have given us big and intrusive government. go figure.

With Democrats it would be even worse on the size and expense of government, and they would add to that the economic drags of higher taxes. Then, they'd try to 'help' more people.

That's not an argument you can make, really. You can't point at a person or group of people and try and hold them accountable for what you think they might have done given certain circumstances.

And even if we presume your hypothetical is 100% true, that doesn't excuse the fact that the GOP has given repeated lip-service to small government ideals while at the same time continuously expanding the government.

Also, again presuming your hypothetical is 100% true, the fact that the Democrats might have done worse doesn't excuse the Republicans from responsibility for their poor job performance. If I was hired for a job, and made whole mess of things in the course of my career, could I cry, "but if you hired another guy he might have done a WORSE job!" when they fired my butt?

[norwegen]

I argue both and I'm an American. We must have different definitions of "left" is you think this country is moving "more and more to the left". It's clear from anyone within the Democratic Party that they've been moving to the right to mimic what they see as effective strategies devised by Republicans; Democrats are on the defense, and it's only been within the last couple of years that any Democratic operatives have seriously questioned the abandonment of liberal and progressive agendas.Democrats believe they're moving to the right?

Yes, obviously we do have different ideas of what the left is.And, if the country did move to the left, it wouldn't be divesting itself of the Constitution; that's a ridiculous and unsupported assertion.This very thread is about one way to achieve that end: infringements on our right to keep and bear arms. And, as I mentioned earlier, a push toward Democracy; I'm thinking chiefly of the blue states New Jersey and Maryland (here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080114/ap_on_re_us/popular_vote)).As for those politicians who attempt to close the gap, I applaud the (supposed) end but I'm skeptical of the means.You applaud inequality, then?

[TyRockwell]

Jimmy: Geesh, leave some Flavor-aid for the rest of your ilk. We survived Clinton without the federal government getting so expansive. And all this complaining about taxes when the Bush admin is spending our future tax dollars (which is being lent to us by the Chinese).

You clearly aren't putting any thoughts behind you ideology.

There has been a lot of hot air expended promoting the idea that Clinton balanced the budget. The truth is that he planned to tax and spend far more than he taxed. The first thing he did was raise taxes.

The American people threw the bums out and took over Congress in the '94 elections. It was the Republican majority in Congress that balanced the budget at that time, and kept the Clintons from enacting their big government socialist agenda. Thanks be unto God!

[Preacher'sKid]

Jimmy: [color=blue

There has been a lot of hot air expended promoting the idea that Clinton balanced the budget. The truth is that he planned to tax and spend far more than he taxed. The first thing he did was raise taxes.

The American people threw the bums out and took over Congress in the '94 elections. It was the Republican majority in Congress that balanced the budget at that time, and kept the Clintons from enacting their big government socialist agenda. Thanks be unto God!

LOL, you right wing kooks crack me up!

Not ONE republican voted for the Clinton balanced budget amendment in '93. It passed and led to the LONGEST PERIOD OF ECONOMIC EXPANSION IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Yet you clowns love to go around saying it would be worse if a democrat was in office now. You sound like my daughter when she was 7 years old. and you reason like 7 year olds as well...

I'm still waiting for one of you loonies to explain to me how right wing politics are in alignment with the teachings of Jesus.

Oh, thats right Jesus often talked about carrying a gun while kicking a homeless person because he's down on his luck...

:lol:

anyone who can talk about liberalism being insidious while their Fuhrer is monitoring our every move in every form of communication we use is a mental case...

[TyRockwell]

PK, you are an agnostic, socialist fool.

[Preacher'sKid]

PK, you are an agnostic, socialist fool.


Didn't Jesus say that calling a man a fool was a sin? Yes, I think he did...

yet another tenet of Christ you choose to ignore...

I am no socialist but I love how you right wing kooks think that is the ultimate insult. It just shows your lack of education. In most of the world socialism is taken seriously and has worked well for many countries, many of which have a higher quality of life rating than we do.

I am an agnostic because basically you don't know (and can't prove) if god exists and neither do I. So stop pretending to...

[Objectitron]

Didn't Jesus say that calling a man a fool was a sin? Yes, I think he did...

yet another tenet of Christ you choose to ignore...

I am no socialist but I love how you right wing kooks think that is the ultimate insult. It just shows your lack of education. In most of the world socialism is taken seriously and has worked well for many countries, many of which have a higher quality of life rating than we do.

I am an agnostic because basically you don't know (and can't prove) if god exists and neither do I. So stop pretending to...


Which countries has it worked well for exactly? That is a spurious argument that a relationship exists between quality of life and political system. So much more determines it such as ethnic diversity, poverty level, population size, etc.

I probably don't agree theologically with most people on this boad, but I know it is much easier to be an agnostic or atheist and conservative...there is no accountability.

[Objectitron]

Which countries has it worked well for exactly? That is a spurious argument that a relationship exists between quality of life and political system. So much more determines it such as ethnic diversity, poverty level, population size, etc.

I probably don't agree theologically with most people on this boad, but I know it is much easier to be an agnostic or atheist and conservative...there is no accountability.

woops...I meant it is much easier to be a liberal...and no it was not a freudian slip.

[TyRockwell]

Didn't Jesus say that calling a man a fool was a sin? Yes, I think he did

He said it was dangerous to call your brother a fool. Matthew 5:22 He obviously excepted atheists, agnostics and many liberals.

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." Psalm 14:1 I'm pretty safe, nonbro.

[Ryokan]

Didn't Jesus say that calling a man a fool was a sin? Yes, I think he did

He said it was dangerous to call your brother a fool. Matthew 5:22 He obviously excepted atheists, agnostics and many liberals.

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." Psalm 14:1 I'm pretty safe, nonbro.

I would suggest this a gross misreprentation of scripture. :ahem:
We are all brothers and sisters.

[TyRockwell]

Ryokan, your suggesting that, "We are all brothers and sisters," Is a misrepresentation of scripture. It a humanist mindset, and not one the word of God promotes. We all came from Adam, but, "In Adam, all die, even so, in Christ, all are made alive." 1st Cor. 15:22

There are sons of God, for which the whole earth groans, children of God, new creations in Christ.

Then there are those who, "are of your father, the devil," as Jesus said. Thank God we can change families.

[Ryokan]

Ryokan, your suggesting that, "We are all brothers and sisters," Is a misrepresentation of scripture. It a humanist mindset, and not one the word of God promotes. We all came from Adam, but, "In Adam, all die, even so, in Christ, all are made alive." 1st Cor. 15:22

There are sons of God, for which the whole earth groans, children of God, new creations in Christ.

Then there are those who, "are of your father, the devil," as Jesus said. Thank God we can change families.

:sigh:

[Preacher'sKid]

Which countries has it worked well for exactly? That is a spurious argument that a relationship exists between quality of life and political system. So much more determines it such as ethnic diversity, poverty level, population size, etc.



Not an argument at all...it's common knowledge...

Sweden, Norway, Denmark (all socialist countries) all have higher quality of life ratings than the good ole US of A... according to the Economist...a VERY conservative publication...

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

Even though GDP is heavily weighted in this study, America came out pretty low on the chart compared to where most ignorant Americans THINK we stand on the ratings chart...

[QUOTE=I probably don't agree theologically with most people on this boad, but I know it is much easier to be an agnostic or atheist and conservative...there is no accountability.[/QUOTE]


That is a pretty ignorant statement as well...Many christians are christians because in fact it is easier to ask for forgiveness than to live ethically in the first place. You don't need to be a relgious person to be ethical. In fact religious people tend to be less ethical because they feel no obligation to treat non-believers as equals, or brothers, as Ty Rockwell just explained in his last post. They don't realize what huge hypocrites they are...there are a million ways to use the bible to justify anything. Slavery and the slaughter of millions of native americans were justified using the bible...

ha! :lol: so much for accountability

[Objectitron]

Not an argument at all...it's common knowledge...

Sweden, Norway, Denmark (all socialist countries) all have higher quality of life ratings than the good ole US of A... according to the Economist...a VERY conservative publication...

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

Even though GDP is heavily weighted in this study, America came out pretty low on the chart compared to where most ignorant Americans THINK we stand on the ratings chart...




That is a pretty ignorant statement as well...Many christians are christians because in fact it is easier to ask for forgiveness than to live ethically in the first place. You don't need to be a relgious person to be ethical. In fact religious people tend to be less ethical because they feel no obligation to treat non-believers as equals, or brothers, as Ty Rockwell just explained in his last post. They don't realize what huge hypocrites they are...there are a million ways to use the bible to justify anything. Slavery and the slaughter of millions of native americans were justified using the bible...

ha! :lol: so much for accountability


oh...you got me...I guess I'll just pack up and go home. So, you're one of those people who point out every time a Christian makes a mistake to justify being an agnostic? I bet it makes you feel good to see Christians act hypocritically. And where is your research that religious people are less ethical than non-believers...sounds more of a hypothesis to me. Because people who happen to be Christian throughout history have made horrible mistakes and got it wrong lets just throw out Christianity altogether? Forget about looking objectively at the historicity and claims of Christianity. That sounds like an intelligent argument. Maybe we should throw atheism out too after Stallin and Mao killed their millions...I mean...since...non-believers are more ethical.

You're right, you don't have to be a religious person to be an ethical person, but then ethics are relative and they can change to fit certain situations. With Christianity ethics are defined and permanent, which implies accountability. Who are you accountable to besides your self and possibly your family if you're an agnostic or atheist? That is why it is easier. The Bible can say anything you want it to when interpreted incorrectly and taken out of context in a similar way to smear campaigns in politics. So because people do that, we should throw the religion out? Surely you have a better argument than that. Now, enough about that, lets get back to the real argument here

I guess we would have to define socialism. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark had socialist political parties in control. The countries do not affirm in their constitution that they hold to a socialist ideology. Thus, through elections (democracy) the ruling political parties are subject to change. Now if these parties seize autocratic control and change the constitution then we'll see how happy their citizens will be. Tell me about the current and true Socialist countries like Cuba, Laos, China, North Korea, and Vietnam. Now lets look at their quality of life...China is 60, Laos is 61, and the others failed to register...the analysts must not have been allowed into the country or figured it was a moot point.

Did you even read the article? Why I said it was a spurious argument is because it doesn't take into consideration the political system. The closest thing is political stability. There were 9 determinants, not one was for a political system or political party. Guess what...if you just looked at the statistics...more rapes occur when more ice cream is sold. So are the two related? No, more rapes occur in the summer because people tend stay out later and people tend to buy more icecream in the summer because it is hotter. You need to learn how statistics work before you come to a conclusion. In this case it doesn't matter because Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are not socialist countries and even if they were there wasn't a determinant in the study for a political system or a political party. Just looking at these countries' demographics one can deduce they have small homogeneous populations and have hardly any racial or religious diversity. The United States has a large mixed population with a lot of racial and religious diversity. Without doing a statistical study it seems the U.S. would be more negative in certain determinates such as divorce rates, community life, and gender equality based on their demographics. Lets just face it Americans are fatter than almost everyone, so our health is going to be lower too. So, without listing any political factors such as system or party the U.S. has an uphill battle to fight against countries like Denmark in the quality of life department.

Like you told me..."it is not an argument all...its common knowledge"

You look at statistics like you claim people look at the Bible. You can make them say anything you want. How are you any different?

[TyRockwell]

Preacher'sKid: In fact religious people tend to be less ethical because they feel no obligation to treat non-believers as equals, or brothers, as Ty Rockwell just explained in his last post. They don't realize what huge hypocrites they are...there are a million ways to use the bible to justify anything. Slavery and the slaughter of millions of native americans were justified using the bible...

Your post above is unethical. You justify your disagreement with what the Bible says about the difference between the Sons of God and the children of the devil by attempting to smear me with the allegation, because of my statements on the issue, that somehow I am in the same camp as those who justified slavery by the Bible.

[Preacher'sKid]

Preacher'sKid: In fact religious people tend to be less ethical because they feel no obligation to treat non-believers as equals, or brothers, as Ty Rockwell just explained in his last post. They don't realize what huge hypocrites they are...there are a million ways to use the bible to justify anything. Slavery and the slaughter of millions of native americans were justified using the bible...

Your post above is unethical. You justify your disagreement with what the Bible says about the difference between the Sons of God and the children of the devil by attempting to smear me with the allegation, because of my statements on the issue, that somehow I am in the same camp as those who justified slavery by the Bible.


Uh, exACTLY! You're not going to get away with that one scot-free. The attitude displayed in that hateful post is a perfect example of why Jews and Palestinians are still killing each other today after all these years. "He's not my brother"

As long as you zealots continue with that kind of hatred and pretend it is supported by the bible, the hatred between religions will continue...

and you Pharisees like to point at Muslims and accuse THEM of such things...

[Preacher'sKid]

oh...you got me...I guess I'll just pack up and go home. So, you're one of those people who point out every time a Christian makes a mistake to justify being an agnostic? I bet it makes you feel good to see Christians act hypocritically. And where is your research that religious people are less ethical than non-believers...sounds more of a hypothesis to me. Because people who happen to be Christian throughout history have made horrible mistakes and got it wrong lets just throw out Christianity altogether? Forget about looking objectively at the historicity and claims of Christianity. That sounds like an intelligent argument. Maybe we should throw atheism out too after Stallin and Mao killed their millions...I mean...since...non-believers are more ethical.

You're right, you don't have to be a religious person to be an ethical person, but then ethics are relative and they can change to fit certain situations. With Christianity ethics are defined and permanent, which implies accountability. Who are you accountable to besides your self and possibly your family if you're an agnostic or atheist? That is why it is easier. The Bible can say anything you want it to when interpreted incorrectly and taken out of context in a similar way to smear campaigns in politics. So because people do that, we should throw the religion out? Surely you have a better argument than that. Now, enough about that, lets get back to the real argument here

I guess we would have to define socialism. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark had socialist political parties in control. The countries do not affirm in their constitution that they hold to a socialist ideology. Thus, through elections (democracy) the ruling political parties are subject to change. Now if these parties seize autocratic control and change the constitution then we'll see how happy their citizens will be. Tell me about the current and true Socialist countries like Cuba, Laos, China, North Korea, and Vietnam. Now lets look at their quality of life...China is 60, Laos is 61, and the others failed to register...the analysts must not have been allowed into the country or figured it was a moot point.

Did you even read the article? Why I said it was a spurious argument is because it doesn't take into consideration the political system. The closest thing is political stability. There were 9 determinants, not one was for a political system or political party. Guess what...if you just looked at the statistics...more rapes occur when more ice cream is sold. So are the two related? No, more rapes occur in the summer because people tend stay out later and people tend to buy more icecream in the summer because it is hotter. You need to learn how statistics work before you come to a conclusion. In this case it doesn't matter because Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are not socialist countries and even if they were there wasn't a determinant in the study for a political system or a political party. Just looking at these countries' demographics one can deduce they have small homogeneous populations and have hardly any racial or religious diversity. The United States has a large mixed population with a lot of racial and religious diversity. Without doing a statistical study it seems the U.S. would be more negative in certain determinates such as divorce rates, community life, and gender equality based on their demographics. Lets just face it Americans are fatter than almost everyone, so our health is going to be lower too. So, without listing any political factors such as system or party the U.S. has an uphill battle to fight against countries like Denmark in the quality of life department.

Like you told me..."it is not an argument all...its common knowledge"

You look at statistics like you claim people look at the Bible. You can make them say anything you want. How are you any different?

OMG! You've GOT to be kidding me! So the Economist didnt name the political system of every country so that is a flaw in your eyes? LOL

THey rated countries based on political freedom and stability. Democratic socialist countries like Norway and Sweden are known for having more freedom and stability than we do, (especially since this Nazi fundamentalist Bush slithered into office)

BTW, I love the part where you claim that here is no cause and effect between a countries political system and their quality of life...as soon as you found out that another countries rating was higher that is...before that you were beating your chest "merrkuh's the best cuntry in the wurld!" LOL

and you obviously dont know the difference between socialism, democratic socialism, communism and state socialism so I'm beating my head against a wall here with you...

sigh, I was hoping to run into some halfway intelligent people here on this forum..so far, no luck

[Objectitron]

Uh, exACTLY! You're not going to get away with that one scot-free. The attitude displayed in that hateful post is a perfect example of why Jews and Palestinians are still killing each other today after all these years. "He's not my brother"

As long as you zealots continue with that kind of hatred and pretend it is supported by the bible, the hatred between religions will continue...

and you Pharisees like to point at Muslims and accuse THEM of such things...



For one, if you knew anything about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict you would know that it hardly has anything to do with religion...I'm not going to go into the history of the conflict because we don't have enough time...religion has been used as a catalyst on both sides but the conflict itself is derived from political, economic, and social reasons, not to mention ethnic hatred. Slobodan Milosevic used religion as a tool to unite the Serbs (Orthodox) living in Bosnia to slaughter the Muslims and Croats, and Tudjman and the Croats (Catholics) did the same thing. Relgion was used as a tool, Power was the real motivation behind the war, the media liked to frame it as a religious war, but it was not. Religion was invoked and used by both sides in effort to consolidate power and land. As a result millions of innocent people were slaughter. If they actually used the ethics of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy it never would have happened.

How am I using hatred? I'm really trying to follow you here...I'm using sarcasim at times because you don't know what you are talking about, but it certainly is not hatred.

There's hatred btw most religions because there is a lack of understanding. However, some doctrines in some relgions have been interpreted as justification for such violence. So should we all become agnostic then?

How am I a pharisee...because I'm not someone who eats up the crap you are trying to feed people. I only respond to you because I'm afraid if I don't, some lonely soul out there might actually take you seriously.

[Objectitron]

OMG! You've GOT to be kidding me! So the Economist didnt name the political system of every country so that is a flaw in your eyes? LOL

I'm not the one who claimed, based on the economist article which you used, that countries like Denmark, Sweden, or Norway have a better quality of life based on their political system. It is a moot point because political system wasn't a determinant. Obviously, you have know idea how statistics work. If the study had used it as a determinant then maybe you could make a case, but they didn't. The more you try and argue this point the more you are losing credibility. This doesn't even make sense. Please, someone out there on TWEB, who has more patience than I do, explain to this gentlemen how statistics work

They rated countries based on political freedom and stability. Democratic socialist countries like Norway and Sweden are known for having more freedom and stability than we do, (especially since this Nazi fundamentalist Bush slithered into office)
Political freedom and stability is not political system. Based on the study or the link you gave me, you can't tell if those countries have more freedom and stability, it only compares Ireland, the UK, and the US. All the countries in the study are compared in terms on GDP. You would have to see the entire extrapolation to look at the difference btw the US and your so-called democratic socialist countries in regards to pol freedom and stability. In order for a country's political system to be characterized as Democratic Socialist the population as a whole has to own the means of production. If you bothered to do any type of research whatsoever, even primitive wikipedia research, you would know that your so-called Democratic Socialist countries all have Constitutional Monarchies. You are not going to win this argument. And how do you know these countries have more freedom and stability than us? Bush is a Nazi, why?
BTW, I love the part where you claim that here is no cause and effect between a countries political system and their quality of life...as soon as you found out that another countries rating was higher that is...before that you were beating your chest "merrkuh's the best cuntry in the wurld!" LOL

I just let the statistics speak for themselves...It is not my fault that all real socialist countries have a poor quality of life. There might be and probably is a statistical relationship btw pol system and quality of life, it just isn't in the study that YOU cited. It is interesting that before my first post you called Norway, Denmark, and Sweden as socialist...now you call them democratic socialist...hopefully by your next post you will get it right and they will be just democratic. What country is the best in the world?


and you obviously dont know the difference between socialism, democratic socialism, communism and state socialism so I'm beating my head against a wall here with you...

ummm...you sure about that? I think you should be asking that question to yourself. I will add though that if a country considers itself communist, this implies it is also socialist...one of the rungs of the ladder of Marx's beliefs.

sigh, I was hoping to run into some halfway intelligent people here on this forum..so far, no luck

I'm really not sure what world you live on where you create things out of thin air


Look...I'm really not out to embarrass you, but the more you argue and challenge your points the more you embarrass yourself. Change is always possible. I argue with facts and logic...and while I will inject sarcasim to keep things interesting I am open to other's opinion as long as they argue with at least the facts...what do you argue with?