28 May 09
Originally posted by whodeyI call Glen Beck an idiot for many reasons not pertaining to this thread.
Why do you call him an idiot but then just reinforce everything he is saying by what you say in regard to progressivism? His arguement is that it has dominated American politics for the last century in both parties. His arguement is that there is precious little difference in the two party system.
Also, Beck didn't even write the piece that you linked. Reading through the editorial it is riddled with mischaracterations of Liberalism and attempts in an attempt to but leftist ideology in a negative light.
28 May 09
Originally posted by whodeyThe big names? Absolutely, although I wouldn't call Bill O'Reilly an idiot but he is intellectually dishonest and hyprocritical.
No doubt, I am sure any conservative talking head out there would be considered an idiot. Just give us a little time to become "enlightened" like the rest of ya!! 😛
I have heard local AM radio hosts in CA that I think are reasonably intelligent and (seem to be) generally honest.
28 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by spruce112358Global government is impossible in the near future.
Global government is a good idea because it would put in place an effective way to resolve international conflicts -- which we don't have right now. The UN is totally inadequate -- an unelected body, for one.
To make such a thing work, one would need an Earth/World Constitution, an Earth/World Bill of Human Rights, Earth/World Supreme Court, direct e ...[text shortened]... currently spend on conflict would be redirected into more productive arenas. That would be fun.
How exactly would you divvy up representation?
By population? That would encourage countries to increase their populations, when the Earth could probably use a bit of the opposite? In any case, do you think that a country like the US would or should agree to roughly 1/4 the say in World events that India has?
By GNP or GNP per capita? Good luck convincing progressives that greater wealth entitles one to greater representation.
By military might? Good luck determining how that's measured.
By allocating each country equal say (like the UN general assembly)? Again, impossible. If it really mattered, the US could justifiably argue that it's really 50 sovereign states and you'd see endless debates on the status of, say, Trinidad and Tobago. How about Indian Reservations? Do they each get a seat in this World government?
Add to all of that the fact that people are not interested in being governed by people on the other side of the World who don't have a clue as to how they live.
Your grandiose vision is admirable. Unfortunately, it's a pipe dream.
28 May 09
Originally posted by whodeyI suspect the GOP will soon be moving strongly in a libertarian direction
The Founding Fathers could be called Libertarians for a variety of reasons. Of course, no modern day examples can be found and I thinnk in US politics with the two party stranglehold none will be given an opputunity.
the "social issues" that once dominated the GOP's formula for winning elections have lost their effectiveness. The 60's are over. Americans have found much common ground on issues like religion, race, women's rights, crime, welfare, and other "family values" issues.
I suspect many within the GOP would be more than happy to jettison the social issues, since they distract from and often contradict the quest for "smaller government" and "increased freedom". The GOP would then be able to focus on being the party that promotes freedom both in the marketplace and within the home.
28 May 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperHow do you think O'reilly is intelectually dishonest?
The big names? Absolutely, although I wouldn't call Bill O'Reilly an idiot but he is intellectually dishonest and hyprocritical.
I have heard local AM radio hosts in CA that I think are reasonably intelligent and (seem to be) generally honest.
But yes, glenn back is just a fear-monger.
28 May 09
Originally posted by sh76I don't think it is such a pipe dream. In the same way that the Federal government only has those powers granted in the Constitution, so World government would have only those powers ceded to it. These could be as many or as few as the member states desire. All other powers would be retained by Nations, States within Nations, or the People.
Global government is impossible in the near future.
How exactly would you divvy up representation?
By population? That would encourage countries to increase their populations, when the Earth could probably use a bit of the opposite? In any case, do you think that a country like the US would or should agree to roughly 1/4 the say in World events that India ...[text shortened]... to how they live.
Your grandiose vision is admirable. Unfortunately, it's a pipe dream.
Representation always presents a problem -- but one which has been solved over and over.
Interestingly, until other Populated Worlds are discovered, there would not necessarily be a need for a 'World Military' under a single command. Who would it fight? So no 'World' defense budget per se.
Since most international disputes would be decided in a World Court, national militaries would have little to do -- fighting civil insurrections, perhaps; but mainly contributing to UN peacemaking (not peace keeping -- a misnomer) missions when member states refused to abide by legitimate decisions.
World Police would have jurisdiction only on crimes that crossed national boundaries. So they would little affect the lives of most citizens.
Again, I think World government should be created more to provide an effective, non-military way to resolve international disputes. It isn't about trying to govern member states in ways they don't agree with.
28 May 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesSo you say social issues like abortion should has no place in the political arena? Well then, if they don't want abortion to be a political issue then stop giving tax payer money to help finance it. Don't you agree?
I suspect the GOP will soon be moving strongly in a libertarian direction
the "social issues" that once dominated the GOP's formula for winning elections have lost their effectiveness. The 60's are over. Americans have found much common ground on issues like religion, race, women's rights, crime, welfare, and other "family values" issues.
I suspect ...[text shortened]... on being the party that promotes freedom both in the marketplace and within the home.
28 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperSo Glenn Beck is an idiot? Ok, I guess I'll take your word for it if for no other reason that you say so. So you say his editorial is riddles with mischaricterations of Libertalism thinking? Ok, I guess I'll take your word for this as well.
I call Glen Beck an idiot for many reasons not pertaining to this thread.
Also, Beck didn't even write the piece that you linked. Reading through the editorial it is riddled with mischaracterations of Liberalism and attempts in an attempt to but leftist ideology in a negative light.
You know, you make compelling arugments. Ever thought of running as a Democrat for the US Congress? You know, I think you are wasting your talents on us.
28 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperYou know, I once heard of this liberal guy who seemed to be reasonably intellegent and somewhat honest as well. I believe he lived on the other side of the globe somewhere in south east asia. I heard about him through a friend of another friend.
The big names? Absolutely, although I wouldn't call Bill O'Reilly an idiot but he is intellectually dishonest and hyprocritical.
I have heard local AM radio hosts in CA that I think are reasonably intelligent and (seem to be) generally honest.
Now if only we could get these reasonably honest liberals and conservatives together and run for office I think we could have something!! 😛
28 May 09
Originally posted by whodeyYour ignorance is frightening sometimes. The federal government hasn't provided any funding for abortions since the Hyde Amendment was passed in 1976!
So you say social issues like abortion should has no place in the political arena? Well then, if they don't want abortion to be a political issue then stop giving tax payer money to help finance it. Don't you agree?
28 May 09
Originally posted by no1marauderNot true. For example, planned parenthood recieves about a third of their income from government grants. In fact, last year they recieved about $340 million in government funding. So does every penny go to abortions directly? No, but it does go to an organization that promotes it. Once again, your patisan bias and dogmatic beliefs are causing you to skew the truth.
Your ignorance is frightening sometimes. The federal government hasn't provided any funding for abortions since the Hyde Amendment was passed in [b]1976![/b]
28 May 09
Originally posted by no1marauderThat is not entirely accurate.
Your ignorance is frightening sometimes. The federal government hasn't provided any funding for abortions since the Hyde Amendment was passed in [b]1976![/b]
The Hyde Amendment limited which abortions can be funded with federal dollars. It did not eliminate all federal funding of all abortions.
States also have some discretion to cover some abortions not required under federal law.
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/index.html
28 May 09
Originally posted by sh76Eeeeks!! Don't cloud the issue with facts, will ya?
That is not entirely accurate.
The Hyde Amendment limited which abortions can be funded with federal dollars. It did not eliminate all federal funding of all abortions.
States also have some discretion to cover some abortions not required under federal law.
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/index.html
28 May 09
Originally posted by whodeyYou've moved the goalposts:
Not true. For example, planned parenthood recieves about a third of their income from government grants. In fact, last year they recieved about $340 million in government funding. So does every penny go to abortions directly? No, but it does go to an organization that promotes it. Once again, your patisan bias and dogmatic beliefs are causing you to skew the truth.
whodey: if they don't want abortion to be a political issue then stop giving tax payer money to help finance it.
Grants to Planned Parenthood don't finance abortion. So you remain ignorant and wrong.