quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ]But this is virtually indentical to republican healthcare arguments, because its not subsidized you say its "better" but to me its clearly overpriced for diminishing returns. Just how many of your "several" top fifty is because of simply population mass? you have over 350 million people to our 33 million.
Healthcare and Education are completely different industries. Arguing against subsidies (or more correctly, a subsidy driven system) in education is not equivalent to arguments against health care reform. The arguments against one are the other are hardly identical, because the implications of one or the other are entirely different.
Deal with the implications of the argument, don't dredge up associations with other issues that are too different to be dealt with in one discussion.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But this is virtually indentical to republican healthcare arguments, because its not subsidized you say its "better" but to me its clearly overpriced for diminishing returns. Just how many of your "several" top fifty is because of simply population mass? you have over 350 million people to our 33 million.
First, it isn't remotely identical to Republicans healthcare arguments. It isn't even parallel. Please try to deal with the evidence honestly.
Overpriced for diminishing returns? The returns are extremely high! One of the US's main competitive advantages (especially now) remains our extremely high returns to education (that doesn't just mean the abstract qualify of education, but the ability of translating educational returns into productivity, which we are far better at than pretty much every other country of any size). Our tech advantage? Because of how well our universities educate and incubate innovation. Our manufacturing advantage? Same basic thing. You get the idea. An educational system that performed even a bit less well than ours does could easily take a few percentage points off our growth, since so much of that growth is dependent on the US being a country pushing the boundaries of innovation and productivity, which are highly educationally linked.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm not touching whether or not it was justified, I'm confining my remarks to how that statement gives a unique glimpse into the author's POV.
it brings up the question of the core elements of that POV, and whether its vitriol or its description of what makes something the 'radical Left' or 'a media puppet of the Left' (see, his comments on NPR) holds any water, or if it's just the framing based on his approximation of himself as a moderate, allowing himself to define moderacy, etc.
The short copy is 'no' but right now there's a side discussion about education in america so
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
InTrade has liked Romney's debate performances, and disliked Perry's. Before the 9/8 debate, Perry was leading Romney 38-32; after the debate, Romney led Perry 39-35. Before last night's debate, Romney was leading 36-32. After last night's debate he was leading 42-29.
Now it certainly could be that InTrade is suffering from some sort of selection bias causing it to overreact to minor events, but I think it's likely that the debates have really hurt Perry, particularly the unflattering news stories that have followed each debate.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The debates have been terrible for Perry, especially his statement that he would not step back from anything in his book from years ago. edit: Though I think this is largely of function of people just getting to know who Perry actually is.
Santorum is actually pretty hungry for blood right now, and there's definitely a chance that while he won't get the nomination, his name is getting out there, and down the road that could pay off.
There's still so much time for any candidate to screw the pooch, but if things hold, I expect Romney to comfortably snag the nomination.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The debates have been terrible for Perry, especially his statement that he would not step back from anything in his book from years ago.
Fed Up! came out in Nov. 2010 (which is less than "years ago").
In fact, during the book's roll out he used the "candid" opinions expressed as evidence that he wasn't running for the nomination in 2012 (the idea being no one could say the things he ways saying and be a serious Presidential contender).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The debates have been terrible for Perry, especially his statement that he would not step back from anything in his book from years ago. edit: Though I think this is largely of function of people just getting to know who Perry actually is.
That's pretty much the long and short of it. Perry's pretty ghastly when you get right down to his career history and his outright indulgence in self-serving graft.
I've pretty much already detailed what's going to happen to perry, and why, and through what machinations of the GOP and republican primaries.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We all knew that was going to happen. The media and the public like the new shiny things that come out, but as soon as we really have a chance to play with them and realize they aren't all that, we put them down and go find something else. Sometimes we return to our favorite toys of the past.
Perry's shine is starting to wear off, and he'll come back down to earth now.
Fun news? Huntsman is third behind Romney and Paul in New Hampshire. Parlaying that into anything more will still be tricky, but it really shows that when people get to know him one on one, his strategy is on to something.
As far as the debate goes, the best part must have been the crowd booing the gay soldier who asked if they'd bring back DADT. Santorum, the field's poster child for DADT, called it social engineering and that gays not received special privileges. Ignoring for a moment that gay servicemembers still don't get marriage benefits for their legal spouses, I fail to see how it's a special privilege to be gay in the military. Also, he should REALLY be careful with the phrase "social engineering" in relation to the military. When you start cribbing 40s racists to make your point, you're started down a troubling path. His answer also sort of made no sense. He said two things: 1. That recently outed soldiers wouldn't be kicked out, and 2. They should just keep it to themselves! Well, that'll be interesting to institute. So he'll let current gays serve, but we'll go back to kicking out the new gays? How does that fix anything for him? And what, like before DADT was repealed, they were shouting from the roof tops? The whole problem with DADT is that thousands of service men and women were expelled from the military despite never having uttered a peep about it.
posted
The booing of the gay serviceman was interesting to me, too. Not because it was surprising or anything, but because of the way it hinted at something of the social conservative true attitude towards the military: it's so well liked because it often reflects them (social conservatives)-the respect for service and sacrifice makes fine rhetoric, but it's far from the entire story either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not entirely sure I'd characterize it that way. I think most of them are pretty genuine in their veneration of the military (to the point of excess, if you ask me), but being gay is a nullifying factor, as in, "Oh, you're gay? Well, you're not a REAL soldier, so I can hate you now." It's a pretty necessary psychological tool to redefine something you revere as the "other" so you won't suffer from cognitive dissonance when prosecuting your hatred of the thing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
For reference, here's the question and the answer:
quote:My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?"
(BOOING)
Santorum: "Yeah, I — I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. And the fact that they're making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to — to — and removing 'don't ask/don't tell' I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military's job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country.
"We need to give the military, which is all-volunteer, the ability to do so in a way that is most efficient at protecting our men and women in uniform."
(APPLAUSE)
"And I believe this undermines that ability."
(APPLAUSE)
Moderator Megyn Kelly: "So what — what — what would you do with soldiers like Stephen Hill? I mean, he's — now he's out. He's — you know, you saw his face on camera. When he first submitted this video to us, it was without his face on camera. Now he's out. So what would you do as president?"
Santorum: "I think it's — it's — it's — look, what we're doing is playing social experimentation with — with our military right now. And that's tragic.
"I would — I would just say that, going forward, we would — we would reinstitute that policy, if Rick Santorum was president, period.
"That policy would be reinstituted. And as far as people who are in — in — I would not throw them out, because that would be unfair to them because of the policy of this administration, but we would move forward in — in conformity with what was happening in the past, which was, sex is not an issue. It is — it should not be an issue. Leave it alone, keep it — keep it to yourself, whether you're a heterosexual or a homosexual."
Re: the bolded part - this is how you hem and haw at an issue when you know that speaking your mind about what you actually think would make you completely unelectable.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To pick a couple of nits: "the crowd" didn't boo, two or three people did (just as, in the last debate, "the crowd" didn't yell "let him die" during the insurance question).
Also, Santorum never talked about "social engineering" in his response (which was incoherent, rambling, and demonstrated a shocking lack of preparedness on a question he should have been ready for). He talked about "injecting social policy" and "social experimentation" both of which I guess you could argue are equivalent to "social engineering," but I would say they're subtly different.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... When you start cribbing 40s racists to make your point, you're started down a troubling path. ... So he'll let current gays serve, but we'll go back to kicking out the new gays?
Maybe he'll go back to the old way (for blacks or Asians) and have segregated regiments for gays.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not entirely sure I'd characterize it that way. I think most of them are pretty genuine in their veneration of the military (to the point of excess, if you ask me), but being gay is a nullifying factor, as in, "Oh, you're gay? Well, you're not a REAL soldier, so I can hate you now." It's a pretty necessary psychological tool to redefine something you revere as the "other" so you won't suffer from cognitive dissonance when prosecuting your hatred of the thing.
You should have seen the FR response, it's pretty much exactly what you're talking about.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: To pick a couple of nits: "the crowd" didn't boo, two or three people did (just as, in the last debate, "the crowd" didn't yell "let him die" during the insurance question).
This is an important point. In the first debate though, the room did applaud Perry executing more people than any other governor.
But even that is a bit loaded, the governor does not execute people, they choose not to pardon people.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But even that is a bit loaded, the governor does not execute people, they choose not to pardon people.
I could be mistaken, but I believe the governor is head of the executive branch and the executive branch includes the prison system as well as attorney general's office so he can be said to be responsible to some degree for the effectiveness of those organizations in achieving death penalty verdicts and carrying out executions.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
One governor decided he didn't believe in the death penalty and so the death penalty went away in that state. I don't remember which one though.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:But even that is a bit loaded, the governor does not execute people, they choose not to pardon people.
I could be mistaken, but I believe the governor is head of the executive branch and the executive branch includes the prison system as well as attorney general's office so he can be said to be responsible to some degree for the effectiveness of those organizations in achieving death penalty verdicts and carrying out executions.
The judiciary though would be in charge of actually handing out death sentences. The Executive branch could control how much the state prosecution seeks the death penalty.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, at least they are no longer pretending to be deferring to the wisdom of the military's leaders or "waiting for the data." Now they've at least embraced that they are against the 1st amendment in principle, and are seeking to impose their moral authority through legislation. I mean... admitting you are a fascist pig is the hardest part.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing new will be admitted. Take a look at this statement, por exemple:
quote:Sorry, even though I’ve served with some great folks who were gay, I know the liberal system. The pressures of PC will rise to overcome logic and procedure. And, it will cast doubt on those gays who have been promoted due to ability only.
It's perfect, it's a solid encapsulation of all the mechanisms at play!
1. Don't Get Me Wrong: make sure to point out that you work with/are 'tolerant' of/have friends who are of the group you wish to oppress. You need to make sure that nobody thinks you're intolerant/homophobic just because you want to keep gays silenced and delegitimized!
2. It's A Plot: Nothing can just be about fixing a broken system, it's all about advancing a corrupt agenda!
3. Mewling about Political Correctness: the no. 1 thing to do when many people on an internet board think and vocally state you are wrong is to say you are being 'dogpiled.' The no. 1 thing to do when most people in the country have turned against the discriminations that you are afraid to see repealed is to hem about PC culture and being 'forced to act and think a certain way'
4. This Is For Their Own Good: Those discriminations were obviously in place to help the homos. It is the height of foolishness for them to act out against these protections! (iirc this defense of DADT was also used here not too long ago)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Santorum: Yeah, I — I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military.
Is former Senator Santorum under the impression that our active military is celibate? Because I have some stories I could tell him.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: What 'special privilege' is he talking about, anyway?
I can't even guess at what the special privilege is. I'm trying to wrap my brain around some weird sort of Conservative logic, and I can't come up with it.
Is the privilege supposed to be that we're making a special exception for evil and immoral behavior and condoning a sinful lifestyle? That's all I can come up with.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
You know, Mitch Daniels was talked about a lot as a favorite among the GOP for a variety of reasons for a run. A lot of candidates waited specifically to see what he was going to do before they threw their hat in the ring. His credentials as a fiscal conservative are highly regarded.
It was an interesting interview, and I think Jon was a little thrown off by the fact that Daniels wasn't defending most of the standard GOP talking points. I have to wonder what this race would look like if Daniels was in it. It just doesn't seem like he'd fit in with the current crowd. I think he'd hew closer to Huntsman. But with how far to the right this race is pushing candidates, I think he'd probably get squeezed out.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Daniels recently went pretty far in defending Perry's Social Security comments. While he's more moderate socially than, say, Bachmann or Santorum or Perry, he's quite Paul Ryan-esque fiscally. Chris Christie is like that, too; socially agnostic, focused on fiscal issues. All three generated a lot of interest among elite Republicans, but all three chose not to run. Meanwhile, movement Republicans like Bachmann and Santorum ended up in the race, leading to the primaries (thus far) being more focused on social issues than they otherwise would have been. I think this has generally been to the detriment of the party's chances in the Presidential election. The big issues in 2012 aren't social issues, so holding primaries that largely focus on them seems suboptimal.
That's not to say fiscal issues haven't played a role in the primaries so far, or that they won't in the coming nine months, just that I think social considerations have thus far played an out-sized role in the GOP's weighing of various candidates.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: What 'special privilege' is he talking about, anyway?
I can't even guess at what the special privilege is. I'm trying to wrap my brain around some weird sort of Conservative logic, and I can't come up with it.
Is the privilege supposed to be that we're making a special exception for evil and immoral behavior and condoning a sinful lifestyle? That's all I can come up with.
Assuming it meant anything at all (see my earlier comment on the coherence of Santorum's overall response), I would guess the "special privilege" he was referring to was sort of a pre-emptive concern about reverse discrimination. "We don't have a 'straight service members rule' so why do we need a 'gay service members rule'?!" Something like that.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: What 'special privilege' is he talking about, anyway?
I can't even guess at what the special privilege is. I'm trying to wrap my brain around some weird sort of Conservative logic, and I can't come up with it.
Is the privilege supposed to be that we're making a special exception for evil and immoral behavior and condoning a sinful lifestyle? That's all I can come up with.
Assuming it meant anything at all (see my earlier comment on the coherence of Santorum's overall response), I would guess the "special privilege" he was referring to was sort of a pre-emptive concern about reverse discrimination. "We don't have a 'straight service members rule' so why do we need a 'gay service members rule'?!" Something like that.
I don't think it makes any more sense to them than it does to you. But I think it has some shades of the idea that gays are inherently unqualified for military services for reasons of being "faggy" or possibly "girly," and so they will automatically be poor soldiers because of gay stereotypes about limp-wristed fashion photographers and stylists.
(ETA: because homophobia and anti-gay stereotypes, especially in the military, seem to have more to do with lack of masculinity than anything else).
Which is actually somewhat the lookout of the gay community itself, which sometimes perpetuates effeminate gay stereotypes as a way of self-distinguishing and aggressively asserting their sexuality. Blame mostly movies and reality tv- and in fact, a lot of straight producers and writers as well, who think that gays are only one kind of person.
posted
But women serve in the military as well, and have served long enough to be more or less off-limits when it comes to disparaging groups for serving. Do effeminate men occupy some sort of nether region between the two genders that makes them accessible for scorn?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My contention would be that, yes, effeminate men occupy that nether region, and have for thousands of years. I think that's a rather simple equation: Men know how to relate to men, and how to relate to women, but an effeminate man may not be relatable in the same ways as either a woman or another (more masculine) man.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just lost two responses in a row. In a very weird way. Pssssssst: I think the site's being maliciously probed.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Crossposted this from the execution thread. This is an interesting case in Perry's gubernatorial history. I think it paints him in a pretty bad light as someone who makes poor decisions for political purposes when presented with overwhelming evidence. This might not get much play in the primary, though Brian Williams sort of tangentially raised the issue in a debate, but you have to expect Obama or some liberal 501 will hit him with it. And it's a fair charge. It's about decision making and fact-gathering. It also reminds me all too much of Bush and the Iraq war invasion situation.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rick Perry has been pretty disdainful of science and evidence in many issues. The fact that he behaves that way when lives hinge upon it is informative but not surprising. Also, there is the whole squashing of the group that was investigating what went wrong in this case.
I am always amazed that republicans believe the government screws everything up and should be minimal but has no problem giving the government power to execute people. If the government is so bad, surely executions should be one of the first things eliminated from its list of powers.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Why don't you go to Saudi Arabia where they...oh wait, that's pretty much just Texas with funny hats isn't it? Oh wait! They have that too! Damn!
There has to be a longer joke in there. Name a place that's really hot, it never rains, is run by religious fundamentalists, where they unfairly execute large numbers of people and there's a ton of oil in the ground. If you answered Saudi Arabia, you're wrong! We were looking for Texas.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I am always amazed that republicans believe the government screws everything up and should be minimal but has no problem giving the government power to execute people. If the government is so bad, surely executions should be one of the first things eliminated from its list of powers.
I don't see the death penalty as exhibiting this tension so much - in most cases isn't it a jury of one's peers that affirms the sentence? Conservative support for rendition, water-boarding etc. seems more contradictory, especially given that innocent people have been subjected to these.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure nativism plays a role, but I think the bigger issue is that priority #1 is low taxes and a bigger government requires more revenue, hence big government is demonized.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the general consensus is that Texas has for sure executed an innocent man (Lyrhawn's link). Also, hundreds of death row inmates have been freed by Project Innocence. With their crap record, I would think this would be one more example of the government being a failure with horrible consequences and yet the anti-government party seems to be hugely in favor of death penalty. Also, there was a study that showed if you are pro-life you are more likely to be pro-death penalty than if you are pro-choice.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Speaking of Saudi Arabia, they just gave women the right to vote.
IP: Logged |
posted
And they only vote like once every 100 years in those municipal elections, which are themselves a very recent trend.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And they still get publicly flogged for driving. Or being out without male chaperoning. And are frequently sold off as children into marriages.
But hooray they can vote in municipal elections now. If their male family members permit it, cause they ain't allowed out on their own. Yippee.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to think the reason there is the disconnect you describe, scholarette, is that the conservatives we hear on this issue are more likely to be social conservatives than anything. And it's a rare social conservative, in my experience, that actually believes in 'limited government' overall-but rather 'limited to things we want' government.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Daniels recently went pretty far in defending Perry's Social Security comments. While he's more moderate socially than, say, Bachmann or Santorum or Perry, he's quite Paul Ryan-esque fiscally. Chris Christie is like that, too; socially agnostic, focused on fiscal issues. All three generated a lot of interest among elite Republicans, but all three chose not to run. Meanwhile, movement Republicans like Bachmann and Santorum ended up in the race, leading to the primaries (thus far) being more focused on social issues than they otherwise would have been. I think this has generally been to the detriment of the party's chances in the Presidential election. The big issues in 2012 aren't social issues, so holding primaries that largely focus on them seems suboptimal.
That's not to say fiscal issues haven't played a role in the primaries so far, or that they won't in the coming nine months, just that I think social considerations have thus far played an out-sized role in the GOP's weighing of various candidates.
Well said! I think this is a fantastic assessment of the current situation.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I tend to think the reason there is the disconnect you describe, scholarette, is that the conservatives we hear on this issue are more likely to be social conservatives than anything. And it's a rare social conservative, in my experience, that actually believes in 'limited government' overall-but rather 'limited to things we want' government.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
