God damnit. I was hoping to have dinner with a friend on Monday to catch up. She bought into the tea party crap and I was going to just not bring up politics. I don't think I'd be able to resist now though. >_<
Matthews makes a good point regarding the deification of the founding fathers. Is there anybody writing about that trend, or talking about it in any significant manner?
It's a fascinating and frightening occurrence...
Writing as in books? I know there's some books out there about this regarding Lincoln, if that counts. Similar principle in play there
Similar to Lincoln, as you say, but there is some serious glossing over of the facts with regards to the founders. I just think it's something that probably needs to be discussed and written about more... and ridiculed for its stupidity.
Matthews makes a good point regarding the deification of the founding fathers. Is there anybody writing about that trend, or talking about it in any significant manner?
It's a fascinating and frightening occurrence...
It's not a trend, it's a full blown fact in the US.
I think more than one of them probably would have reconsidered this whole "America" thing if they could peer into the future, into a land where the United States has wealth that makes the richest empires of antiquity look like paupers, a land where the old british empire was less powerful than California - and see we've elected someone like Bachmann
"You're telling me one day we're going to have weapons that can destroy all life on earth and one of the representatives in charge of that mighty land will honestly believe that shit?"
The mandate exists because the healthcare law made it illegal for insurance companies to deny people coverage because they have a pre-existing condition. Which makes sense, because you need health insurance to pay for your treatment if you have cancer.
But if it is illegal for the company to deny people healthcare, then everyone would just never buy healthcare until they got sick. That would put every insurance company out of business because the industry works by having a large pool of healthy people pay in so that when a minority get sick there is money to pay for their medicine.
So the mandate comes in and says everyone has to buy insurance - that way you can make the insurance companies provide service to whoever needs it while preventing people from destroying the insurance industry by not buying insurance until they need it.
And then the government provides money for people to help them cover the cost of the insurance they are required to have if they are low income and couldn't otherwise afford it.
That's the heart of the thing.
See, this is what I want people to talk about. At some point or another, if you disagree with health care reform, you disagree with one of those principles.
1) People need health insurance to assist in paying medical bills.
2) Health Insurance should not be denied based on pre-existing conditions.
3) If people only buy health insurance after they get sick, then health insurers will go out of business because they will be paying out more than they get in. That is unsustainable.
4) To make sure private health care stays in business, everyone must buy some health insurance before they get sick.
On the topic of the SOTU;
I found it nicely inspiring, as most SOTU's are. I dislike that rhetoric keeps having to being injected just for political concessions. Particularly, I hate when people have to say "bipartisan" to actually mean "cooperating for the mutual benefit of the people".
The mandate exists because the healthcare law made it illegal for insurance companies to deny people coverage because they have a pre-existing condition. Which makes sense, because you need health insurance to pay for your treatment if you have cancer.
But if it is illegal for the company to deny people healthcare, then everyone would just never buy healthcare until they got sick. That would put every insurance company out of business because the industry works by having a large pool of healthy people pay in so that when a minority get sick there is money to pay for their medicine.
So the mandate comes in and says everyone has to buy insurance - that way you can make the insurance companies provide service to whoever needs it while preventing people from destroying the insurance industry by not buying insurance until they need it.
And then the government provides money for people to help them cover the cost of the insurance they are required to have if they are low income and couldn't otherwise afford it.
That's the heart of the thing.
See, this is what I want people to talk about. At some point or another, if you disagree with health care reform, you disagree with one of those principles.
1) People need health insurance to assist in paying medical bills.
2) Health Insurance should not be denied based on pre-existing conditions.
3) If people only buy health insurance after they get sick, then health insurers will go out of business because they will be paying out more than they get in. That is unsustainable.
4) To make sure private health care stays in business, everyone must buy some health insurance before they get sick.
On the topic of the SOTU;
I found it nicely inspiring, as most SOTU's are. I dislike that rhetoric keeps having to being injected just for political concessions. Particularly, I hate when people have to say "bipartisan" to actually mean "cooperating for the mutual benefit of the people".
There's a fifth principle which is: the government shouldn't be the ones providing that insurance. Which is the one liberals disagree with.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
There's a fifth principle which is: the government shouldn't be the ones providing that insurance. Which is the one liberals disagree with.
It was my understanding that the reform bill was not attempting to create government run insurance, but basically to make sure private insurance would not go out of business with the mandate. Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
Also, if I understand correctly, 'liberal' people would be in favor of a single payer type system where the government does provide the insurance as opposed to multiple private insurers.
There's a fifth principle which is: the government shouldn't be the ones providing that insurance. Which is the one liberals disagree with.
It was my understanding that the reform bill was not attempting to create government run insurance, but basically to make sure private insurance would not go out of business with the mandate. Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
Also, if I understand correctly, 'liberal' people would be in favor of a single payer type system where the government does provide the insurance as opposed to multiple private insurers.
The liberal dream is basically just extending Medicare to all citizens.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Matthews makes a good point regarding the deification of the founding fathers. Is there anybody writing about that trend, or talking about it in any significant manner?
It's a fascinating and frightening occurrence...
Writing as in books? I know there's some books out there about this regarding Lincoln, if that counts. Similar principle in play there
Similar to Lincoln, as you say, but there is some serious glossing over of the facts with regards to the founders. I just think it's something that probably needs to be discussed and written about more... and ridiculed for its stupidity.
I concur, but the problem extends far beyond deification of the founders.
Where it differs from what they entered into law, stating what the founders thought, detached from why they thought it, isn't a valid argument for much. 'Because the founders thought so,' with no further justification, is nothing more than an appeal to authority. And as far as issues facing modern society goes, they aren't even a very good authority. Without the 'why,' the supporting facts, you don't need to know whether the comparison or association with the founders is accurate because it doesn't matter.
People need to understand how to assess relevant information, and separate it from bullshit rhetoric. That's the real problem. Accepting the deification of historical figures is just one form of it.
People need to understand how to assess relevant information, and separate it from bullshit rhetoric. That's the real problem. Accepting the deification of historical figures is just one form of it.
Which points to a huge deficiency in the education system in the U.S. Luckily, such luminaries as Rand Paul have a solution for us...
It'd be near impossible to prove it was imported or not.
The yellow "Don't Tread on Me" one is much easier to get US made though, because it's very rare to see it in even the most hardcore patriotic stores around here. I remember my stepdad in the late 90s spent like 3 months just trying to find one that was actually made out of cloth and not rayon/nylon (whatever that material is)
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
edited January 2011
Would never happen. They'd have to then deify Betsy Ross. A woman who chose to have a career in sewing and altering, instead of just remarrying and letting her husband provide. Sure, she did a woman's job, but she was still doing it outside of her home! The shame! the Shame!
There's a fifth principle which is: the government shouldn't be the ones providing that insurance. Which is the one liberals disagree with.
It was my understanding that the reform bill was not attempting to create government run insurance, but basically to make sure private insurance would not go out of business with the mandate. Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
Also, if I understand correctly, 'liberal' people would be in favor of a single payer type system where the government does provide the insurance as opposed to multiple private insurers.
The liberal dream is basically just extending Medicare to all citizens.
I'd amend that by saying, as a liberal, the government should bring the cost of Medicare down by negotiating (by negotiating, I mean demanding) prices with pharma on drugs that were developed at public universities. There's no reason for a pill to cost $100 a bottle when $2 billion in taxpayer money was used to create it.
I'm fascinated to hear that John Quncy Adams now qualifies as a "Founding Father".
Also, to underscore the whole "Founding Fathers weren't a hive mind", not all of the Founders were pro-slavery. Alexander Hamilton, for example, was pretty staunchly anti-slavery, and headed one of the first anti-slavery organizations in New York. It's also pretty certain that he never owned any slaves.
I'm fascinated to hear that John Quncy Adams now qualifies as a "Founding Father".
Also, to underscore the whole "Founding Fathers weren't a hive mind", not all of the Founders were pro-slavery. Alexander Hamilton, for example, was pretty staunchly anti-slavery, and headed one of the first anti-slavery organizations in New York. It's also pretty certain that he never owned any slaves.
There's a fifth principle which is: the government shouldn't be the ones providing that insurance. Which is the one liberals disagree with.
It was my understanding that the reform bill was not attempting to create government run insurance, but basically to make sure private insurance would not go out of business with the mandate. Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
Also, if I understand correctly, 'liberal' people would be in favor of a single payer type system where the government does provide the insurance as opposed to multiple private insurers.
The liberal dream is basically just extending Medicare to all citizens.
I'd amend that by saying, as a liberal, the government should bring the cost of Medicare down by negotiating (by negotiating, I mean demanding) prices with pharma on drugs that were developed at public universities. There's no reason for a pill to cost $100 a bottle when $2 billion in taxpayer money was used to create it.
Well, yeah we'd reform it too, but that's the basic one sentence idea.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Here's an interesting point about the SOTU address: it's not what he said, it's what he didn't say. The words unemployment, foreclosure, climate change, gun control, reproductive rights, and marriage equality were never mentioned even once.
What he stressed instead was competition, innovation, trade, and the deficit. Basically all the things that corporations care about.
Here's an interesting point about the SOTU address: it's not what he said, it's what he didn't say. The words unemployment, foreclosure, climate change, gun control, reproductive rights, and marriage equality were never mentioned even once.
What he stressed instead was competition, innovation, trade, and the deficit. Basically all the things that corporations care about.
Not to be overly pedantic (especially recognizing that many of these issues are very important to a lot of people), but the words he didn't use could almost fill a book.
You could call it a Dictionary. >.>
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Here's an interesting point about the SOTU address: it's not what he said, it's what he didn't say. The words unemployment, foreclosure, climate change, gun control, reproductive rights, and marriage equality were never mentioned even once.
What he stressed instead was competition, innovation, trade, and the deficit. Basically all the things that corporations care about.
climate change, gun control, reproductive rights, and marriage equality were never mentioned even once.
This doesn't surprise me too much.
Climate Change: It's happening, we'll feel the effects eventually. As time moves forward, it will be harder to ignore. But in today's politics, it's just picking a fight that can't be won.
Gun Control: Why butt heads with the NRA? Pointless.
Reproductive Rights: I'm pretty ignorant about this topic. I don't know what the current issues being discussed are in this arena.
Marriage Equality: Sadly, this is an issue for the electorate, not the president. It's going to take a more tolerant nation, not a bill. And it's happening, because this is a generational issue. (I'm aware of the issue the gay community has with the "it just takes time" argument. I agree, gays deserve to marry, like, yesterday, but if I was in the president's shoes I'd table it too)
Here's an interesting point about the SOTU address: it's not what he said, it's what he didn't say. The words unemployment, foreclosure, climate change, gun control, reproductive rights, and marriage equality were never mentioned even once.
What he stressed instead was competition, innovation, trade, and the deficit. Basically all the things that corporations care about.
Not to be overly pedantic (especially recognizing that many of these issues are very important to a lot of people), but the words he didn't use could almost fill a book.
You could call it a Dictionary. >.>
Obama never used the word beautiful...does this mean he doesn't think I'm pretty?
Climate change was tangentially involved with all the energy talk. And if you say climate change that stuff is dead in the cradle.
Yeah, that's the tricky one. He actually says the words 'climate change' and the negatives go up, but if he frames the conversation around whizz-bang new technologies it's a much easier sell. That was just smart speech making, to be frank.
climate change, gun control, reproductive rights, and marriage equality were never mentioned even once.
This doesn't surprise me too much.
Climate Change: It's happening, we'll feel the effects eventually. As time moves forward, it will be harder to ignore. But in today's politics, it's just picking a fight that can't be won.
Gun Control: Why butt heads with the NRA? Pointless.
Reproductive Rights: I'm pretty ignorant about this topic. I don't know what the current issues being discussed are in this arena.
Marriage Equality: Sadly, this is an issue for the electorate, not the president. It's going to take a more tolerant nation, not a bill. And it's happening, because this is a generational issue. (I'm aware of the issue the gay community has with the "it just takes time" argument. I agree, gays deserve to marry, like, yesterday, but if I was in the president's shoes I'd table it too)
I think the gun control thing is probably more that pushing for anything on that right now is going to result in "LIBROCRATS ARE USING THE SHOOTING AS AN EXCUSE TO PUSH THEIR COMMI-GENDA!"
Here's an interesting point about the SOTU address: it's not what he said, it's what he didn't say. The words unemployment, foreclosure, climate change, gun control, reproductive rights, and marriage equality were never mentioned even once.
What he stressed instead was competition, innovation, trade, and the deficit. Basically all the things that corporations care about.
Uh, things that Americans also care about.
Because, you know, economy.
Actually, when ranking the issues that Americans care about most, those issues are all way down at the bottom. Most Americans' view of the economy is "can I get a good job and keep my house?" not "are the corporations making enough profit?".
climate change, gun control, reproductive rights, and marriage equality were never mentioned even once.
This doesn't surprise me too much.
Climate Change: It's happening, we'll feel the effects eventually. As time moves forward, it will be harder to ignore. But in today's politics, it's just picking a fight that can't be won.
Gun Control: Why butt heads with the NRA? Pointless.
Reproductive Rights: I'm pretty ignorant about this topic. I don't know what the current issues being discussed are in this arena.
Marriage Equality: Sadly, this is an issue for the electorate, not the president. It's going to take a more tolerant nation, not a bill. And it's happening, because this is a generational issue. (I'm aware of the issue the gay community has with the "it just takes time" argument. I agree, gays deserve to marry, like, yesterday, but if I was in the president's shoes I'd table it too)
I sort of agree- I mean, I'm not saying I expected him to come out and make a big push for gay marriage and a national handgun ban! But I'm surprised that he didn't even give any lip service to these things. Especially gun control- in light of the Tuscon shooting, it seems like quite a lot of people would like to see the high-capacity magazines banned.
Climate change was tangentially involved with all the energy talk. And if you say climate change that stuff is dead in the cradle.
"Foreclosure" is the actually problematic one.
He phrased energy talk entirely in terms of competitiveness, like, "we need to develop more energy sources to compete with China! Energy like clean coal!" That's not going to help climate change at all. And I don't see how at least mentioning somethign about it would doom the plan. I mean, it's already not going to happen because the republicans won't vote for any new spending, so he might as well at least try to get this into the national spotlight.
And yeah, I really don't know why he didn't bring up the foreclosure crisis. Everybody hates bankers now, right?
Posts
Similar to Lincoln, as you say, but there is some serious glossing over of the facts with regards to the founders. I just think it's something that probably needs to be discussed and written about more... and ridiculed for its stupidity.
It's not a trend, it's a full blown fact in the US.
Frankly, it's fucking creepy.
"You're telling me one day we're going to have weapons that can destroy all life on earth and one of the representatives in charge of that mighty land will honestly believe that shit?"
See, this is what I want people to talk about. At some point or another, if you disagree with health care reform, you disagree with one of those principles.
1) People need health insurance to assist in paying medical bills.
2) Health Insurance should not be denied based on pre-existing conditions.
3) If people only buy health insurance after they get sick, then health insurers will go out of business because they will be paying out more than they get in. That is unsustainable.
4) To make sure private health care stays in business, everyone must buy some health insurance before they get sick.
On the topic of the SOTU;
I found it nicely inspiring, as most SOTU's are. I dislike that rhetoric keeps having to being injected just for political concessions. Particularly, I hate when people have to say "bipartisan" to actually mean "cooperating for the mutual benefit of the people".
There's a fifth principle which is: the government shouldn't be the ones providing that insurance. Which is the one liberals disagree with.
Yes because they had to give her a position so they gave her one where she can't use it to get in the spotlight.
They stuck her in the media closet.
but...she found the way out again...
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
It was my understanding that the reform bill was not attempting to create government run insurance, but basically to make sure private insurance would not go out of business with the mandate. Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
Also, if I understand correctly, 'liberal' people would be in favor of a single payer type system where the government does provide the insurance as opposed to multiple private insurers.
The liberal dream is basically just extending Medicare to all citizens.
I concur, but the problem extends far beyond deification of the founders.
Where it differs from what they entered into law, stating what the founders thought, detached from why they thought it, isn't a valid argument for much. 'Because the founders thought so,' with no further justification, is nothing more than an appeal to authority. And as far as issues facing modern society goes, they aren't even a very good authority. Without the 'why,' the supporting facts, you don't need to know whether the comparison or association with the founders is accurate because it doesn't matter.
People need to understand how to assess relevant information, and separate it from bullshit rhetoric. That's the real problem. Accepting the deification of historical figures is just one form of it.
Which points to a huge deficiency in the education system in the U.S. Luckily, such luminaries as Rand Paul have a solution for us...
...made in China.
The yellow "Don't Tread on Me" one is much easier to get US made though, because it's very rare to see it in even the most hardcore patriotic stores around here. I remember my stepdad in the late 90s spent like 3 months just trying to find one that was actually made out of cloth and not rayon/nylon (whatever that material is)
edit: also it'd be a bad idea anyway
/sarcasm
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I'd amend that by saying, as a liberal, the government should bring the cost of Medicare down by negotiating (by negotiating, I mean demanding) prices with pharma on drugs that were developed at public universities. There's no reason for a pill to cost $100 a bottle when $2 billion in taxpayer money was used to create it.
Also, to underscore the whole "Founding Fathers weren't a hive mind", not all of the Founders were pro-slavery. Alexander Hamilton, for example, was pretty staunchly anti-slavery, and headed one of the first anti-slavery organizations in New York. It's also pretty certain that he never owned any slaves.
Well, yeah we'd reform it too, but that's the basic one sentence idea.
What he stressed instead was competition, innovation, trade, and the deficit. Basically all the things that corporations care about.
Why would he talk about something that he has never been strongly in favour of?
Not to be overly pedantic (especially recognizing that many of these issues are very important to a lot of people), but the words he didn't use could almost fill a book.
You could call it a Dictionary. >.>
Uh, things that Americans also care about.
Because, you know, economy.
This doesn't surprise me too much.
Climate Change: It's happening, we'll feel the effects eventually. As time moves forward, it will be harder to ignore. But in today's politics, it's just picking a fight that can't be won.
Gun Control: Why butt heads with the NRA? Pointless.
Reproductive Rights: I'm pretty ignorant about this topic. I don't know what the current issues being discussed are in this arena.
Marriage Equality: Sadly, this is an issue for the electorate, not the president. It's going to take a more tolerant nation, not a bill. And it's happening, because this is a generational issue. (I'm aware of the issue the gay community has with the "it just takes time" argument. I agree, gays deserve to marry, like, yesterday, but if I was in the president's shoes I'd table it too)
Obama never used the word beautiful...does this mean he doesn't think I'm pretty?
"Foreclosure" is the actually problematic one.
Yeah, that's the tricky one. He actually says the words 'climate change' and the negatives go up, but if he frames the conversation around whizz-bang new technologies it's a much easier sell. That was just smart speech making, to be frank.
I think the gun control thing is probably more that pushing for anything on that right now is going to result in "LIBROCRATS ARE USING THE SHOOTING AS AN EXCUSE TO PUSH THEIR COMMI-GENDA!"
Actually, when ranking the issues that Americans care about most, those issues are all way down at the bottom. Most Americans' view of the economy is "can I get a good job and keep my house?" not "are the corporations making enough profit?".
I sort of agree- I mean, I'm not saying I expected him to come out and make a big push for gay marriage and a national handgun ban! But I'm surprised that he didn't even give any lip service to these things. Especially gun control- in light of the Tuscon shooting, it seems like quite a lot of people would like to see the high-capacity magazines banned.
He phrased energy talk entirely in terms of competitiveness, like, "we need to develop more energy sources to compete with China! Energy like clean coal!" That's not going to help climate change at all. And I don't see how at least mentioning somethign about it would doom the plan. I mean, it's already not going to happen because the republicans won't vote for any new spending, so he might as well at least try to get this into the national spotlight.
And yeah, I really don't know why he didn't bring up the foreclosure crisis. Everybody hates bankers now, right?
Except the chair of the House Banking Committee.