Both. Unless you believe that Republicans in power are universally evil rather than they simply allow some moral divergence in tactics in order to enact the policies they truly believe are best.
To say it another way: Lobbyists are not successful because they donate lots of money. They are successful because they convince people its the right thing to do. Either in the short run (largesse supports jobs, they might as well be in your state!) or in the long run (low taxes are good for the economy)
I'd dispute the use of "evil". That means different things to different people.
I think they, the Republican politicians, have a sphere of moral concern that is extremely small. They're largely concerned about their personal welfare, and that of their friends and families, and are largely willing to throw principles and people outside this moral sphere under the bus in order to benefit these interests.
i think it expands to "their kind of people" really.
they'd like to see the industrious white christian midwestern suburban business-owning familyman thrive. they might not know this particular one, but their friends are the same sorts of people.
probably each step you take from the center of their advocacy is a step removed from whether they will exert their inflence and power to plead your case. they'd probably fight for the industrious black christian midwestern suburban business-owning familyman if only they could find some.
conservatives, further, seem to see things pretty strongly in a zero-sum sense, in spite of their platitudes about growing the pie. they really do, largely, see "their people" losing their grasp on the culture and economy of the country, and they're fearful of this.
it's pretty much what defines conservatism, actually.
I don't think there's any particular love for white Christian suburban whatever in the political class, barring the occasional True Believer or whatever. I think that's the demographic they target for votes. Business owners... probably/maybe. I think wealth is the common factor among the group in question, and I think there's a pretty strong divide between the actual views of the politicians and the people they appeal to for votes. I believe this extends to the think tank groups and media personalities as well, thought they all target slightly different groups and have different incentives for saying different things.
I think that, were they more genuinely concerned about their constituents, they wouldn't lie to them as much as they do.
Loren Michael on
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited September 2010
If most Republicans believe a lot of the (very public) policies they're trying to pass are 'for the good of everyone' then they're not evil, just functionally retarded.
When a large group of people on this forum (most without serious backgrounds in economics, et al.) can call bullshit on things, then there might be something to that.
Oh my god we're supposed to write an analysis of Reagan's wall speech, my entire speech class.
We have to analyze why this is the greatest speech in history, and can only use this as a source.
God I hope the source is unbiased, I haven't had a chance to look at it yet except the contributors who include goldmann sachs and investment firm execs
Does anybody remember anything about that speech other than "tear down this wall?"
At the time, the speech received "relatively little coverage from the media."[11] Communists were also unimpressed by the speech,[1] and the Soviet press agency Tass accused Reagan as giving an "openly provocative, war-mongering speech."[2]
Wikipedia is obviously made up of a bunch of communists.
Oh my god we're supposed to write an analysis of Reagan's wall speech, my entire speech class.
We have to analyze why this is the greatest speech in history, and can only use this as a source.
You should watch Thank You For Smoking, and pay extra close attention to the part where Nick Naylor talks to his son about writing a bullshit paper.
Actually I think I'll write a speech about how Reagan was a warmongering jackass. As long as I hit the key points and keep it on length he has to give me at least an 80%, since only 20% of the grade is his discretion on how good or bad it is (the overall point is supposed to be on format, not content).
I almost lost it in class today when he played a clip of an obama supporter criticizing the president and then later saying "She was disappointed but she'd vote for him again" and said "the leftists obviously got to her!"
Oh my god we're supposed to write an analysis of Reagan's wall speech, my entire speech class.
We have to analyze why this is the greatest speech in history, and can only use this as a source.
You should watch Thank You For Smoking, and pay extra close attention to the part where Nick Naylor talks to his son about writing a bullshit paper.
Actually I think I'll write a speech about how Reagan was a warmongering jackass. As long as I hit the key points and keep it on length he has to give me at least an 80%, since only 20% of the grade is his discretion on how good or bad it is (the overall point is supposed to be on format, not content).
I almost lost it in class today when he played a clip of an obama supporter criticizing the president and then later saying "She was disappointed but she'd vote for him again" and said "the leftists obviously got to her!"
Which supporter was it? Because I can check my OFA list if you'd like.
If most Republicans believe a lot of the (very public) policies they're trying to pass are 'for the good of everyone' then they're not evil, just functionally retarded.
When a large group of people on this forum (most without serious backgrounds in economics, et al.) can call bullshit on things, then there might be something to that.
You can be both a good person and a smart person and still endorse a terrible policy. Being smart doesn't make you an expert on everything; being well-versed on economic issues doesn't mean you're well-versed on foreign policy issues. And at the end of the day, few politicians are subject matter experts on anything much less every matter that might come up for a vote. Representatives in particular are generally just charismatic folks from their respective regions who want to be in politics, and the successful ones are as such because they are good at politics, not because they're supergeniuses who know everything about everything.
And you know what? If you decide to wade into details and minutae, it's very difficult for someone who's not a subject matter expert to figure which side is right in a debate. I mean, I've read some really smart-sounding arguments as to why evolution is bullshit. You throw out some science-y terms and say why so-and-so is an invalid example of a transition fossil and suddenly all that evolution stuff can sound suspect. And if you're just a random Joe who doesn't have a degree in evolutionary biology, I can totally get why maybe you think evolution is bullshit, particularly if you live in a demographic where that belief is popular. And that sort of phenomenon can happen for any given argument.
It's really easy to sit here in a webforum and talk about how anyone who doesn't support higher taxes and socialized health care and Affirmative Action and so on is a retarded troglodyte mouth-breather. But in addition to being completely unhelpful in the larger discourse, it's a load of bunkum once you take five minutes to really think about it.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
You can be both a good person and a smart person and still endorse a terrible policy. Being smart doesn't make you an expert on everything; being well-versed on economic issues doesn't mean you're well-versed on foreign policy issues. And at the end of the day, few politicians are subject matter experts on anything much less every matter that might come up for a vote. Representatives in particular are generally just charismatic folks from their respective regions who want to be in politics, and the successful ones are as such because they are good at politics, not because they're supergeniuses who know everything about everything.
And you know what? If you decide to wade into details and minutae, it's very difficult for someone who's not a subject matter expert to figure which side is right in a debate. I mean, I've read some really smart-sounding arguments as to why evolution is bullshit. You throw out some science-y terms and say why so-and-so is an invalid example of a transition fossil and suddenly all that evolution stuff can sound suspect. And if you're just a random Joe who doesn't have a degree in evolutionary biology, I can totally get why maybe you think evolution is bullshit, particularly if you live in a demographic where that belief is popular. And that sort of phenomenon can happen for any given argument.
It's really easy to sit here in a webforum and talk about how anyone who doesn't support higher taxes and socialized health care and Affirmative Action and so on is a retarded troglodyte mouth-breather. But in addition to being completely unhelpful in the larger discourse, it's a load of bunkum once you take five minutes to really think about it.
which is basically why, when forced to decide on a complicated issue that they don't understand, the instinctive response that almost everyone will go with is "what will help my people?"
IMO
i think that the republican party is traditionally oriented around moneyed interests and that their particular ideology is generally more in-line with the interests of the wealthy. but increasingly the party is being taken over by the cultural conservatives - not just the ones who seriously want to ban abortion and ignore the establishment clause, but also the ones who genuinely hate government and are convinced that we could achieve the objectivist utopia and finally stick it to those parasites if only the government would get out of the way.
and also most republican politicians come from an upper-middle class white background and it's not hard to figure who "their people" are.
but some unionized european and japanese industries have managed to defy the trend of being heavily outsourced the way that american industries have.
what are they doing that we are not?
Aside from the protectionist policies already mentioned, multinationals also have to take into consideration the costs inherent to hiring American workers. There's the cost of employer-provided health insurance. There's the cost of time lost to sick days thanks to employees not utilizing the health care that's (supposed to be) available to them. And there's the cost of educating your employees in areas that American schools often don't adequately cover - basic skills relating to mathematics, literacy, and accounting. If your workforce is, say, German, these concerns aren't nearly as prevalent.
i think that the republican party is traditionally oriented around moneyed interests and that their particular ideology is generally more in-line with the interests of the wealthy. but increasingly the party is being taken over by the cultural conservatives - not just the ones who seriously want to ban abortion and ignore the establishment clause, but also the ones who genuinely hate government and are convinced that we could achieve the objectivist utopia and finally stick it to those parasites if only the government would get out of the way.
Those aren't the cultural conservatives. So do you think the small government wing is taking over the party or the socially conservative wing is? You can't have both.
Sounds like your professor needs to learn to not force his students to write for his own opinion as if it were their own
This. Depending on how your department is laid out and how your professor ranks I'd go have a chat with the department head.
He's a part time instructor teaching a class that people only take because they have to, and was fired from his last teaching job
It's okay though because politics are banned in class. Every time he tells us "We dont do politics in here, but" I know I got a conservative rant incoming
Sounds like your professor needs to learn to not force his students to write for his own opinion as if it were their own
This. Depending on how your department is laid out and how your professor ranks I'd go have a chat with the department head.
He's a part time instructor teaching a class that people only take because they have to, and was fired from his last teaching job
It's okay though because politics are banned in class. Every time he tells us "We dont do politics in here, but" I know I got a conservative rant incoming
Sounds like its time for him to be fired from another.
Styrofoam Sammich on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
i think that the republican party is traditionally oriented around moneyed interests and that their particular ideology is generally more in-line with the interests of the wealthy. but increasingly the party is being taken over by the cultural conservatives - not just the ones who seriously want to ban abortion and ignore the establishment clause, but also the ones who genuinely hate government and are convinced that we could achieve the objectivist utopia and finally stick it to those parasites if only the government would get out of the way.
Those aren't the cultural conservatives. So do you think the small government wing is taking over the party or the socially conservative wing is? You can't have both.
"small government" is these days a cultural commitment, at least within circles like the tea party. They're not asking for cut taxes and relaxed regulation because it benefits (their) business. They're cultural anarchists and social traditionalists who want the edifice of government brought low just because.\
they're a wing of the party that has been kind of dormant since goldwater, and are distinct from the traditional three factions of economic conservatives, defense hawks and religious conservatives.
"small government" is these days a cultural commitment, at least within circles like the tea party. They're not asking for cut taxes and relaxed regulation because it benefits (their) business. They're cultural anarchists and social traditionalists who want the edifice of government brought low just because.\
they're a wing of the party that has been kind of dormant since goldwater, and are distinct from the traditional three factions of economic conservatives, defense hawks and religious conservatives.
I'll have to disagree heartily here. IMHO, Goldwater was the posterboy for the libertarian/small government/economic conservative wing of the party. He hated the social conservatives/religious right with a passion. Choice quote of his on the founder of the moral majority: "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the nuts."
"small government" is these days a cultural commitment, at least within circles like the tea party. They're not asking for cut taxes and relaxed regulation because it benefits (their) business. They're cultural anarchists and social traditionalists who want the edifice of government brought low just because.\
they're a wing of the party that has been kind of dormant since goldwater, and are distinct from the traditional three factions of economic conservatives, defense hawks and religious conservatives.
I'll have to disagree heartily here. IMHO, Goldwater was the posterboy for the libertarian/small government/economic conservative wing of the party. He hated the social conservatives/religious right with a passion. Choice quote of his on the founder of the moral majority: "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the nuts."
I also disagree with Will, but more in the sense that they've been dormant. They've dominated the party.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I think it's worth noting that I haven't seen much that indicates that the average conservative is any less conflicted about parts of his or her own tent as the average liberal. The actual good journalism I've seen on the tea party indicates that there are many religious tea partiers who don't like the Rand-themed stuff and vice versa, and there are plenty of cases of the (what used to be typical) big-business Republican being uneasy with the growing influence of the tea party.
From the outside it's easy to imagine all the disparate elements of the current coalition nodding eagerly at the words of each other, but it doesn't seem that's necessarily the case.
"small government" is these days a cultural commitment, at least within circles like the tea party. They're not asking for cut taxes and relaxed regulation because it benefits (their) business. They're cultural anarchists and social traditionalists who want the edifice of government brought low just because.\
they're a wing of the party that has been kind of dormant since goldwater, and are distinct from the traditional three factions of economic conservatives, defense hawks and religious conservatives.
I'll have to disagree heartily here. IMHO, Goldwater was the posterboy for the libertarian/small government/economic conservative wing of the party. He hated the social conservatives/religious right with a passion. Choice quote of his on the founder of the moral majority: "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the nuts."
I also disagree with Will, but more in the sense that they've been dormant. They've dominated the party.
In the people that vote for republicans there is, but to my knowledge Republicans haven't actually shrunk the size or expenditures of government in a looooooooooong time
In the people that vote for republicans there is, but to my knowledge Republicans haven't actually shrunk the size or expenditures of government in a looooooooooong time
In the people that vote for republicans there is, but to my knowledge Republicans haven't actually shrunk the size or expenditures of government in a looooooooooong time
Oh my god we're supposed to write an analysis of Reagan's wall speech, my entire speech class.
We have to analyze why this is the greatest speech in history, and can only use this as a source.
God I hope the source is unbiased, I haven't had a chance to look at it yet except the contributors who include goldmann sachs and investment firm execs
Can't you complain to your admins at this point about this crap? A republican sure as hell wouldn't put up with it on the other end.
Oh my god we're supposed to write an analysis of Reagan's wall speech, my entire speech class.
We have to analyze why this is the greatest speech in history, and can only use this as a source.
God I hope the source is unbiased, I haven't had a chance to look at it yet except the contributors who include goldmann sachs and investment firm execs
Can't you complain to your admins at this point about this crap? A republican sure as hell wouldn't put up with it on the other end.
That was the general advice. His professor seems to be pretty massively out of line.
We have to analyze why this is the greatest speech in history, and can only use this as a source.
That is brilliant. It's like the Fox News of essays.
Then again, students should be forced to defend opinions they disagree with more frequently. Don't worry, this is not going to hurt you (in the long run).
We have to analyze why this is the greatest speech in history, and can only use this as a source.
That is brilliant. It's like the Fox News of essays.
Then again, students should be forced to defend opinions they disagree with more frequently. Don't worry, this is not going to hurt you (in the long run).
Also try and use Poe's Law as much as possible in your essay.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Posts
I don't think there's any particular love for white Christian suburban whatever in the political class, barring the occasional True Believer or whatever. I think that's the demographic they target for votes. Business owners... probably/maybe. I think wealth is the common factor among the group in question, and I think there's a pretty strong divide between the actual views of the politicians and the people they appeal to for votes. I believe this extends to the think tank groups and media personalities as well, thought they all target slightly different groups and have different incentives for saying different things.
I think that, were they more genuinely concerned about their constituents, they wouldn't lie to them as much as they do.
When a large group of people on this forum (most without serious backgrounds in economics, et al.) can call bullshit on things, then there might be something to that.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
We have to analyze why this is the greatest speech in history, and can only use this as a source.
God I hope the source is unbiased, I haven't had a chance to look at it yet except the contributors who include goldmann sachs and investment firm execs
Short, pointless soundbites devoid of context.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
You should watch Thank You For Smoking, and pay extra close attention to the part where Nick Naylor talks to his son about writing a bullshit paper.
Actually I think I'll write a speech about how Reagan was a warmongering jackass. As long as I hit the key points and keep it on length he has to give me at least an 80%, since only 20% of the grade is his discretion on how good or bad it is (the overall point is supposed to be on format, not content).
I almost lost it in class today when he played a clip of an obama supporter criticizing the president and then later saying "She was disappointed but she'd vote for him again" and said "the leftists obviously got to her!"
Which supporter was it? Because I can check my OFA list if you'd like.
Bunning was crazy.
Steam | Twitter
You can be both a good person and a smart person and still endorse a terrible policy. Being smart doesn't make you an expert on everything; being well-versed on economic issues doesn't mean you're well-versed on foreign policy issues. And at the end of the day, few politicians are subject matter experts on anything much less every matter that might come up for a vote. Representatives in particular are generally just charismatic folks from their respective regions who want to be in politics, and the successful ones are as such because they are good at politics, not because they're supergeniuses who know everything about everything.
And you know what? If you decide to wade into details and minutae, it's very difficult for someone who's not a subject matter expert to figure which side is right in a debate. I mean, I've read some really smart-sounding arguments as to why evolution is bullshit. You throw out some science-y terms and say why so-and-so is an invalid example of a transition fossil and suddenly all that evolution stuff can sound suspect. And if you're just a random Joe who doesn't have a degree in evolutionary biology, I can totally get why maybe you think evolution is bullshit, particularly if you live in a demographic where that belief is popular. And that sort of phenomenon can happen for any given argument.
It's really easy to sit here in a webforum and talk about how anyone who doesn't support higher taxes and socialized health care and Affirmative Action and so on is a retarded troglodyte mouth-breather. But in addition to being completely unhelpful in the larger discourse, it's a load of bunkum once you take five minutes to really think about it.
which is basically why, when forced to decide on a complicated issue that they don't understand, the instinctive response that almost everyone will go with is "what will help my people?"
IMO
i think that the republican party is traditionally oriented around moneyed interests and that their particular ideology is generally more in-line with the interests of the wealthy. but increasingly the party is being taken over by the cultural conservatives - not just the ones who seriously want to ban abortion and ignore the establishment clause, but also the ones who genuinely hate government and are convinced that we could achieve the objectivist utopia and finally stick it to those parasites if only the government would get out of the way.
and also most republican politicians come from an upper-middle class white background and it's not hard to figure who "their people" are.
Aside from the protectionist policies already mentioned, multinationals also have to take into consideration the costs inherent to hiring American workers. There's the cost of employer-provided health insurance. There's the cost of time lost to sick days thanks to employees not utilizing the health care that's (supposed to be) available to them. And there's the cost of educating your employees in areas that American schools often don't adequately cover - basic skills relating to mathematics, literacy, and accounting. If your workforce is, say, German, these concerns aren't nearly as prevalent.
Those aren't the cultural conservatives. So do you think the small government wing is taking over the party or the socially conservative wing is? You can't have both.
This. Depending on how your department is laid out and how your professor ranks I'd go have a chat with the department head.
Definitely talk to the Department head. If that doesn't work, get back to me and we'll get you a list of people to call.
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
He's a part time instructor teaching a class that people only take because they have to, and was fired from his last teaching job
It's okay though because politics are banned in class. Every time he tells us "We dont do politics in here, but" I know I got a conservative rant incoming
Sounds like its time for him to be fired from another.
"small government" is these days a cultural commitment, at least within circles like the tea party. They're not asking for cut taxes and relaxed regulation because it benefits (their) business. They're cultural anarchists and social traditionalists who want the edifice of government brought low just because.\
they're a wing of the party that has been kind of dormant since goldwater, and are distinct from the traditional three factions of economic conservatives, defense hawks and religious conservatives.
unless i missed the biblical quote about Jesus hating short-term capital gains tax increases on people making over 250,000 a year
Obviously you've never checked the beatitudes entry on conservapedia.
Blessed are the plutocrats. They shall inherit tax free.
I'll have to disagree heartily here. IMHO, Goldwater was the posterboy for the libertarian/small government/economic conservative wing of the party. He hated the social conservatives/religious right with a passion. Choice quote of his on the founder of the moral majority: "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the nuts."
I also disagree with Will, but more in the sense that they've been dormant. They've dominated the party.
From the outside it's easy to imagine all the disparate elements of the current coalition nodding eagerly at the words of each other, but it doesn't seem that's necessarily the case.
but the entire Tea Party wave is astroturf through and through
they only care about Democrats governing. There's no ideal of small government left within the GOP
Clinton/Gingrich did a pretty good job of it.
Yes.
Maybe it's a "only Nixon can go to China" thing.
if it were astroturf through and through people like Christine O'Donnell wouldn't be potentially problematic for the GOP.
It's astroturf that is burying and smothering the landscapers
Brilliant.
Can't you complain to your admins at this point about this crap? A republican sure as hell wouldn't put up with it on the other end.
That was the general advice. His professor seems to be pretty massively out of line.
That is brilliant. It's like the Fox News of essays.
Then again, students should be forced to defend opinions they disagree with more frequently. Don't worry, this is not going to hurt you (in the long run).
Also try and use Poe's Law as much as possible in your essay.
Tea Partiers are the vine that ate the South. I can see that.