|
by Senor Barborito 09/02/2003, 7:33am PDT |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Am currently literally more dead than alive from exhaustion, but it feels good to sit.
Anyways, you're missing the nature of my original post. What I was trying to say was, if the Democratic Party had to adopt a 'fantasy platform', still liberal but with reasonable tweaks - what would it look like and why? That was the what Cronkite wrote up, and I'm asking what your take on it is. Why you disagree with his ideals for the Democratic Party. Not all of these have to reflect the current reality precisely - God knows we have Lieberman just as the Republicans have Ashcroft - but rather what should the party line for the Democrats be?
Lizard_King wrote:
Senor Barborito wrote:
This looks like a damned good mission statement.
Response, L_K? I think a further point that 'the Constitution and Bill of Rights will be defended at all costs' should probably be in that list, too. More and more just from the liberals I meet I'm becoming convinced that 'pro-gun liberal' seems like the majority . . . seems increasingly like gun control is a centrist (read: parent) thing.
Look, when assaulting the constitution is a bipartisan hobby, I don't think I see that statement coming from either side any time soon except when attacking the person in power (algore style). Gun rights, hate speech, racial preferences etc will continue to be sticking points for the Dems when it comes to how they choose to violate the constitution.
Re 2nd amendment: you and Howard Dean will still be a tolerated fringe element in that issue. Rest of Liberal America, meet Senor B. Yes, all of them think guns are naughty, and it will continue to be the ad populum reflex in the Democratic Party.
First off, granted, assaulting the Constitution is a bipartisan issue. BUT, Howard Dean and I are not just a fringe element on this issue - from what I've seen it's a bit more complicated than that. Rather it appears to be a regional issue - with the New England liberals more likely being very pro-Constitution-as-written and the west coast liberals otherwise. This is a gross generalization and exceptions abound, but New Hampshire's 'live free or die' motto (an attitude which extends into Vermont and upstate NY a great deal, I assure you) and California coming as close to outlawing all firearms as they can are pretty telling of the attitudes. Who to blame? The bleeding heart centrist-liberals (parents), which correspond to the conservative religious right in intelligence and desire to violate the Constitution.
And from what I recall on our last spat over guns, yours is a categorically limited, highly utilitarian vision of gun rights. Better than nothing, but not that great. Until I start hearing people like you say things like the burden of proof for restricting gun rights has to rest on the government producing concrete evidence rather than the people rationalizing why they need x, you and I will never really agree.
Yes, it is categorically limited in some (from a current view) odd ways - because the intent of the founders was to use the 2nd amendment as an insurance policy should the government they had designed descend into tyranny. I don't support weapons that have a utility for revolutions being highly restricted when they are not an unthinkable danger to society in general (automatic grenade launchers like the H&K GMG are great for a revolution AND, strapped to the roof of an SUV, for enabling madmen to kill as many people as 9/11 in a very short amount of time - this is the only class of 'small arms' that probably ought to be simply banned outright from private ownership). I do support the restriction of weapons to the extent that they can be used to harm society - pistols allow for concealment and robbery, automatic shotguns for mowing down parades, etc. 30lb 4-foot-long bolt-action .50cal sniper rifles have zero utility for everyday knocking-over-the-liquor-store but they give politicians a damned good reason not to piss off an overwhelming majority of the populace.
Lizard_King wrote:
Senor Barborito quoting Walter Cronkite wrote:
2. That we would match defense dollars with peace dollars to promote democracy abroad, and that we would conduct our foreign affairs in such a manner that other nations would wish to emulate our example and need not be bludgeoned into accepting our leadership.
Ho ho ho. Tell me another one, Walter. Bludgeoned or not, peace dollars haven't done shit for America's image. I would much prefer to see this replaced with "we will not give money to countries that for all practical purposes are our enemies". It would still be idealistic, but at least it would be a step in the right direction, to have a focus on our security/general interests before we start dishing out funding.
A lot of our image problems don't have anything to do with damage from the aid we give but rather have everything to do with our fucking attitude.(/catharsis)
That said, I agree with not aiding our enemies, and more to the point - ending Bush's policy of increasing food shipments to Africa while decreasing condom shipments. The stupidity of that move still makes my brain hurt. HI YES, POPULATION EXPLOSION FOR TWO, MISS.
Lizard_King wrote:
Senor Barborito quoting Walter Cronkite wrote:
3. That deficit financing is bad business,
Yes. Can't be said enough.
Funny how that policy switched parties sometime around the Bush I/Clinton administration. One of the things I hated about liberals as a conservative, and hate about conservatives as a liberal.
Lizard_King wrote:
Senor Barborito quoting Walter Cronkite wrote:
and that taxes must be fairly imposed, with the heavier burden placed on those most able to contribute.
Why don't you start by limiting the role of government to what it can now afford, and then we'll talk about taxing the shit out of rich people after a cost/benefit analysis of what that will do. Until then, all he's saying is that he wants to spend spend spend, and he will subsidize it at the (further) expense of citizens. Just one whisper about tax reform, particularly as it pertains to corporations, would make this a whole lot more credible.
We both agree that government needs to be limited. As for amending taxes, some obvious ideas come to mind - scaled tax for corporations, and no sneaky offshore banking or loopholes. Rape the corporations that have been raping America, with extra penalties for those provably shifting jobs overseas, and leave the mom and pops alone.
Beyond that - TANGENTyou know I heard the weirdest idea the other day and still haven't figured out what the hell is wrong with it, like that tricky question on the crossword puzzle. Proposal goes - whatever the current mean income of America (IIRC $25,000), give that to every citizen every year in biweekly installments. Result? Prices double. People who had NOTHING now can afford food, shelter, clothing. People who had an average salary haven't lost or gained anything. People who made a million a year had their incomes halved because now they make $1,025,000 which is equivalent to $512,500 'old' dollars.
I've yet to figure out a major problem with this idea (outside of the moral outrage I'm sure it instills in you) - any reasons as to why this would lead to economic collapse? Zebco, maybe a little help here?
Lizard_King wrote:
Senor Barborito quoting Walter Cronkite wrote:
4. That our Social Security and health services would be reformed so that no American need fear that mismanagement in Washington will bankrupt his or her pension funds, and equally that every American is guaranteed not just adequate health care but care worthy of this nation's medical profession.
I'm sorry, no one is ever going to sell me on the idea that the problems with government medical care will be dealt with this sort of approach. Some recognition that mismanagement is part and parcel of the chosen style (ie noncompetitive, free of incentive, etc), and therefore you must either be willing to accept that and find a way to fund it, or come up with concrete alternatives (not just "reform"). Not that universal health care is ever likely to garner my vote, but I would at least like to see some realism injected into that side of the debate.
You're talking to America's champion crusader for adopting the Swedish style of medical healthcare - universal yet very competive by making government allocation of funds to providers performance-based. You won't hear disagreement from me. The only reason I ever liked a socialist approach to healthcare was because I recognized a healthy hybrid model in their particular implementation.
Lizard_King wrote:
Senor Barborito quoting Walter Cronkite wrote:
5. That in all federal programs no excuses will be tolerated and all citizens will be treated equally as we know they were created
What does that even mean? "No excuses"? Boy, that's really going to the root of the problem, the whole excuse thing.
And I am always horrified by what leftists really mean when you ask them to define equal treatment. I'll give Cronky the benefit of the doubt, but I fail to see how unequal treatment (especially without reference to what the basis is for that inequality) is the real epidemic afflicting federal programs.
He's politely saying 'fuck don't ask-don't-tell', amongst other things. It's an admission of past party sins and an admonishment to stop committing them.
Lizard_King wrote:
Senor Barborito quoting Walter Cronkite wrote:
6. That we realize that the success, indeed the preservation, of a democracy depends on an educated citizenry, and that teachers, on education's front lines, must be paid commensurate with their responsibilities.
Super. More money down the education black hole. While more money is surely not a bad thing per se, I don't think this statement takes into account the real problems with our educational system.
Now, I'd respect the sort of candidate from any side that had the balls to point out that the mediocrity we witness is the logical consequence of the universal, egalitarian approach to higher education, and that perhaps it is time to start thinking about what it really means when we make bank tellers have a (meaningless) college degree they don't need, which they got alongside future schoolteachers or something that really do need college.
Agreed, I don't like this one myself. The link I just posted re: poverty vs. genes and how those relate to intelligence, maybe, is interesting and a little relevant.
Lizard_King wrote:
Senor Barborito quoting Walter Cronkite wrote:
7. That "no child must be left behind" is a commitment, not a campaign slogan.
Oh, please. I can't believe that even in your most overmedicated moments you consider this anything but a load of crap/justification for whatever crackpot scheme comes their way. Do we really need ONE MORE DEMOCRAT screeching THINKABOUTTHECHILDRENOHMYGODTHECHILDREN!!!!!!!!!?
What's next? It "taking a village" to make sure that child isn't "left behind".
I'd cut the crap and reword it, personally - how about 'party line actually mirrors party actions?' In this case, though, Cronkite is catering to the bleeding hearts and that's a large portion of the liberal voters, sadly.
Lizard_King wrote:
Senor Barborito quoting Walter Cronkite wrote:
8. That our environment shall be fully protected, and that the fortunes of no industry or special interest shall interfere with that mission.
Again, I would have to see what he means by fully protected. When politicians start raising concrete environmental issues, such as the depletion of fisheries and the need to consider fish farming, or the generalized problem that irrigation and water supplies present, or alternative energy plans that don't simply involve oil hysteria, I'll listen. Until then, all I see is "we'll punish the other team's pac's and reward our own".
I actually agree with Bush that hydrogen power needs funding - who gets the results of that R&D is what I want to know. Let me guess- existing energy/automotive companies?
One of the things Cronkite's implying here is leaving ANWR alone, of course. You can mark me down as 'for' leaving ANWR alone.
As for fisheries, wind/tidal power (fuck solar, which is worthless), irrigation - yeah I'm for that for the same reasons. I'd even go one better, too - for the most part I could give a fuck about the owls, but it might be a good idea to preserve a copy of the DNA of a few specimens of every member of the endangered species list. Even a tiny chunk of funding towards a project like that would shut up so many bleeding-heart enviros (V is going to tear off my balls with her bare hands . . . ) so quickly it would be worth its weight in solid gold.
Beyond that, I see a lot of logic in wildly limiting our pollution levels. SUVs and coal power plants simply do not make sense and ought to be outlawed the way old-style air conditioners were. Quite a few other things fall into this category. More than I'm worried about the animals, I'm worried about the people, and Bush has let a lot of things that harm both quite directly slide.
Lizard_King wrote:
Senor Barborito quoting Walter Cronkite wrote:
9. That in the pursuit of a cleaner environment and a more rational economy, the government will undertake the massive program required to develop substitute fuels that will relieve our dependence on foreign oil and diminish the environmental danger from the byproducts of fossil fuels.
Fantastic. Does that include nuclear power in its modern iterations? Oh. Well, what kind of power are we talking about?
Still, I think rationality in this will only be found if both sides can get over their party base hang ups (Save the Caribouuuuu).
Yes that includes modern nuclear power in its current form as far as I'm concerned and the environmental groups need to stop thinking like frightened animals about it and start thinking rationally - coal power is doing real, measurable, serious damage to our environment. Oil as well. Nuclear power does no damage that a very solid bunker in Nevada can't take care of. Yes, it is unpleasant. BUT it is only a temporary, small-scale problem affecting literally nobody between now and a century later when fusion/antimatter/whatever comes out. Beyond that, nuclear would only be really needed for areas where wind/tidal aren't available. Since wind is great on the coasts and the plains, and tidal is great on the coasts - I'm trying to think of what's left and coming up with very little.
The real problem, of course, is unseating the current energy barons like the people who purposefully caused the California brownouts to jack prices, and some would say are pretty much letting the energy grid infrastructure degrade these days in order to get more government money, with stuff like the recent blackout as a result.
Lizard_King wrote:
Senor Barborito quoting Walter Cronkite wrote:
10. That Democrats will lock the door against the naysayers, pessimists and political cowards who will maintain that these Democratic goals are only the dreams of idealists.
What the crap? Does this mean Walter Mondale is getting dug up again? How about resurrecting McGovern? I look forward to it.
WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST. SURRENDER BEFORE THE REVOLUTION.
Hey, he's dictating a fantasy party line here, and you're legally required to stick shit like that in or you're FUCKING FIRED. That's the deal, so no pointing fingers.
--SB |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Cronkite's reduces the Democratic Party to 10 points. Hopefully. by Senor Barborito 08/31/2003, 4:45am PDT 
Re: Cronkite's reduces the Democratic Party to 10 points. Hopefully. by Lizard_King 08/31/2003, 2:17pm PDT
Dammit! All those screeching noises make my head hurt! NT by foogla 08/31/2003, 3:34pm PDT
Re: Cronkite's reduces the Democratic Party to 10 points. Hopefully. by Callow Sniper 09/01/2003, 12:22am PDT
Goddamnit TS, don't tell me you were McFly! NT by OG Callow Sniper 09/01/2003, 6:49am PDT
Just to CLARIFY TS is not me. by McFly 09/01/2003, 2:08pm PDT
Sorry to take so long, spent three days packing all day by Senor Barborito 09/02/2003, 7:33am PDT
Re: Sorry to take so long, spent three days packing all day by The Happiness Engine 09/02/2003, 1:01pm PDT
Well, $2.625 trillion NT by Senor Barborito 09/02/2003, 2:13pm PDT
Re: Sorry to take so long, spent three days packing all day by Zebco Fuckface 09/03/2003, 12:56pm PDT
Re: Sorry to take so long, spent three days packing all day by Zebco Fuckface 09/03/2003, 12:58pm PDT
Assuming we attach work requirement, why does this destroy the economy? by Senor Barborito 09/03/2003, 4:38pm PDT
Re: Assuming we attach work requirement, why does this destroy the economy? by corax 09/04/2003, 3:30pm PDT
Re: Sorry to take so long, spent three days packing all day by Mysterio 09/03/2003, 4:40pm PDT
For whatever it's worth, above was me. rental pc :( NT by Lizard_King 09/03/2003, 5:45pm PDT
That's exactly what I did, in fact by Senor Barborito 09/03/2003, 5:55pm PDT
Re: That's exactly what I did, in fact by Lizard_King 09/03/2003, 6:21pm PDT
AHA! Thanks, perfect. by Senor Barborito 09/03/2003, 6:32pm PDT
Re: AHA! Thanks, perfect. by Lizard_King 09/03/2003, 8:00pm PDT
No, I didn't, but thanks again anyway. NT by Senor Barborito 09/03/2003, 8:38pm PDT
What he said, but he's wrong about France and selling equality in the US NT NT by Zebco Fuckface 09/04/2003, 7:06pm PDT
Really? Care to expand on that? I mean, NO I'M RIGHT FAAAG NT by Lizard_King 09/04/2003, 8:13pm PDT
Re: Really? Care to expand on that? I mean, NO I'M RIGHT FAAAG by Zebco Fuckface 09/07/2003, 5:21pm PDT
Re: Really? Care to expand on that? I mean, NO I'M RIGHT FAAAG by Lizard_King 09/07/2003, 6:03pm PDT
Re: Really? Care to expand on that? I mean, NO I'M RIGHT FAAAG by Zebco Fuckface 09/08/2003, 10:11pm PDT
The term is Gini coefficient NT by Senor Barborito 09/08/2003, 11:00pm PDT
huh. by Lizard_King 09/09/2003, 3:17pm PDT
Re: huh. by Zebco Fuckface 09/09/2003, 5:12pm PDT
Re: huh. by Lizard_King 09/10/2003, 2:06pm PDT
Re: huh. by Zebco Fuckface 09/11/2003, 3:38pm PDT
Re: huh. by Lizard_King 09/11/2003, 3:55pm PDT
|
|
