What the **** has Obama done so far?

[DiebytheSword]

You made it pretty clear that you'd rather not debate, so I'm not seeing a reason for me to come out "in the spirit of debate". Furthermore, you've bashed what you believe to be the American brand of liberalism (though it is nothing more than slightly left of what passes for conservatism in the United States, though I think the rest of the world will agree with me when I say American conservatism borders on fanaticism and anti-intellectualism and is nothing like what you'd find in Europe) in several of your posts. If we were to bother to determine who fired the first shot, as it were, I think you'll find it was neither Harsens nor myself.

But what do I know? I'm just a commie.

On another note, every time you and I do debate, and you provide me with links to outdated information, and I, in turn, provide you with recent intel, you dismiss it all as liberal propaganda. Case in point, our WMD debate, which, by the way, Bush said in his new book were never found. What is my point? Even if I were to pounce into this thread in the spirit of debate, you'd find plenty of reasons not to. Or you'll engage and dismiss any and all information contrary to your world view. Kinda defeats the purpose of debating. To me, anyway.

I'm going to go and admit that debating with you brings out the worst in me. You get my back up, intentionally or not. I have never, to my knowledge, called you a commie. To be clear, classic liberalsim doesn't bother me one bit, progressivism does, and it is a whole different beast than liberalism. My wife is a moderate liberal, we disagree on many things. This is fine. On the flip, we both beleive that extremes on both sides are dangerous. Social Conservatism, or Neo-Cons, are just as bad in my view as Progressives.

That being said, the exhcange of ideas in debate does not exist to truly to change the mind of your opponent to your line of thinking, so if your point is that I should just cave in to your opinion and become a liberal because you were better able to navigate google, perhaps I have the spirit of debate's essence pegged incorrectly.

Finally, I said I didn't want to debate an echo chamber. Last night I had a rather interesting light hearted exchange of ideas. Today we grind hard stones. While I expect that no one has exchanged their world views, some ideas were exchanged, regardless of who beleived in what when it was over. All too often the pressure of arguing with someone who is well prepared and passionate about their viewpoints does poorly for my health, therefore, I didn't feel like taking on what seems like the entire message board in spirited mental sparring, which has happened in the past. But what do I know, I'm just an anti-intellectual extremist.

@harSens

Grega has pretty much framed my opinion in very clear terms. Third way is the idea that you can reconcile free market principals with socialism's management of social services such as health care and retirement.

@synth

Careful old freind, you are painting with a wide brush. You say this as if people that live in a trailer or ghetto never considered the economy as a problem.

 

[Synth]

I'm sure they knew what economy meant... he has just got them to say it a lot again.

Hopefully, this means that ghettos and trailer parks are going to disappear.

 

[DiebytheSword]

I'm sure they knew what economy meant... he has just got them to say it a lot again.

Hopefully, this means that ghettos and trailer parks are going to disappear.

That can only happen when the wealth creators offer opportunity OR the trailer park and ghetto denizens seek opportunity themselves. Government can only create opportunity after taking it from somewhere else.

 

[Synth]

If anything it's worth putting neosporin on the medicare/welfare wound that's starting to get infected.

 

[DiebytheSword]

If anything it's worth putting neosporin on the medicare/welfare wound that's starting to get infected.

The problem with entitlements is that those that have them want it, and more of it. Those who hate it, don't want to give anything to it. It never gets addressed until it runs out of money and bankrupts a nation and there is violence in the streets.

Rome . . . Greece . . . France.

It will happen again.

 

[Synth]

I'd like to thank the Internet for eliminating the middle man.

 

[Deathshot]

What we need is a person to fix the world's economy. I mean.... if there is life on this place there should be enough room to make jobs. I demand the Bartering system to return.

 

[Zeonix]

That being said, the exhcange of ideas in debate does not exist to truly to change the mind of your opponent to your line of thinking, so if your point is that I should just cave in to your opinion and become a liberal because you were better able to navigate google, perhaps I have the spirit of debate's essence pegged incorrectly.

My point is if your information is either false or superceded by newer intel, you should accept it and allow your world view to change based on this new information rather than stick to your guns to the bitter end. Does that mean become uber liberal or whatever dividing term exists out there to separate you from me? No. It means, "Hey, I'm still whatever I am, but I probably shouldn't argue x anymore since it's been discredited by just about everyone who's in the know. But that doesn't change y!" And then a new debate begins. It's one thing to argue conceptual politics, where one side can rarely prove the other to be wrong because its mostly a philosophical dispute, and quite another to argue cold hard facts. That's all I'm saying.

Finally, I said I didn't want to debate an echo chamber. Last night I had a rather interesting light hearted exchange of ideas. Today we grind hard stones. While I expect that no one has exchanged their world views, some ideas were exchanged, regardless of who beleived in what when it was over. All too often the pressure of arguing with someone who is well prepared and passionate about their viewpoints does poorly for my health, therefore, I didn't feel like taking on what seems like the entire message board in spirited mental sparring, which has happened in the past. But what do I know, I'm just an anti-intellectual extremist.

Your light-hearted exchange of ideas was mostly you stating your opinions and everyone else saying, "I don't really understand the system because I don't live there, but that's cool, I guess." To me, and this is just an opinion, it was a one-way conversation for the most part. If that's what passes for an exchange of ideas these days, so be it. Debating on this forum hasn't exactly changed the world from viewpoint, so I don't feel the need to go through each of your points and post information to the contrary, which is where I was going with my statement about the Tea Party. After all, when the same people who funded party x begin to fund the radical and new party y, one must question their motivations, and really start to look at said party's policies (assuming they consist of more than cutting spending somewhere but refusing to state specifics)

In any case, I don't care. It's become fairly evident in recent days that politics in the US is nothing more than a sport, and people are generally stupid.

 

[harSens]

@harSens
Grega has pretty much framed my opinion in very clear terms. Third way is the idea that you can reconcile free market principals with socialism's management of social services such as health care and retirement.

You mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(centrism)? Wiki has it listed as centrist and has the Clintons listed as some of their adherents. I guess you could say mandatory health insurance is a part of a plan economy, but the means of production for health care insurance are not necessarily in the hands of the government (I can pick my insurance company).

I find your notion of gradations of socialism a bit odd. Every country will have some means of production managed by its government and will probably regulate the production of some goods. Those are not socialist inventions, socialism is about having ALL your means of production being managed by 'the people' and having your economy be completely planned.

 

[DiebytheSword]

You mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(centrism)? Wiki has it listed as centrist and has the Clintons listed as some of their adherents. I guess you could say mandatory health insurance is a part of a plan economy, but the means of production for health care insurance are not necessarily in the hands of the government (I can pick my insurance company).

I find your notion of gradations of socialism a bit odd. Every country will have some means of production managed by its government and will probably regulate the production of some goods. Those are not socialist inventions, socialism is about having ALL your means of production being managed by 'the people' and having your economy be completely planned.

Alright, I'll recind on this point. Let us say then that most people are to the left of my posiition which is still left of the extreme right.