Way to step up Massachusetts

[Shindig]

Good thing that one does not have to take a basic spelling test before being allowed to cast a vote - most of you wouldn't make it.

It used to be popular to quote a poorly typed political rant and reply with "... and then he voted!"

[Shanks A Million]

Good thing that one does not have to take a basic spelling test before being allowed to cast a vote - most of you wouldn't make it.

I'd venture to guess that spelling is not a major factor in voter comprehension, but history is. English is one of the only languages in which there is a "spelling bee". In other languages, everything is spelled as it sounds. We have a stupid system.

But history is much more important. For example, for those who don't understand the party schisms, no vote. The Republican party was founded in 1854 by northern liberals. They remained the liberal party in the U.S. until the schism of 1912. The term "Republican" refers to a liberal party. After WW-II, for example, the old French Republican party split into the left radical party, and the socialist party. Despite this, you hear a great many conservatives talking about how much they love Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt as models of a great conservative president. Roosevelt was considered and extreme liberal, and a liability to the party when he was chosen as the VP candidate. Lincoln was seen as an elitist northern liberal who wanted to push his views on the south. Both men were hated by the south. A quick look at the election maps of the day show this: Notice the pattern? What's even funnier, is that in 1860, not a single southern state voted Republican. Today, every southern state votes Republican. You think the south went from being bleeding heart liberals to rabid conservatives, while the north went the exact opposite? No way. So, armed with no understanding of basic history, people go out and choose their idols based on party lines. Partisanship is not a good tool to use in your political beliefs. Brown is hardly a conservative. The only reason the Republican party likes the guy is because he kills the veto proof margin. Why do you like him? He is pro gay marriage, and pro choice; he supports a Palestinian state; he does not support strengthening the borders, and he supported the current healthcare reform that requires everyone in Massachusetts to buy health insurance ! So what do Republicans like about him? He's a Republican! That's all.

[senorchipotle]

WOW! so much fail, where to begin...

The problem with this assessment is that it doesn't really take all the factors into account. Both Obama and Roosevelt came into office when the country was in

well, of course it doesn't take all factors into account. singling out variables is the ''liberal'' way of running an economic system. you take certain variables which are historically directly proportional to figures like those of

theft and poverty and make policy around those economic models in order to ''combat'' those problems by passing laws which allow homeless(ok, not really, but pretty close) people to buy houses. in reality, these models are taking into account the wrong variables, ignoring the real ones, and stating things like ''an upward shift in variable 'a' is due to an upward shift in variable 'b,''' when in reality variable 'b' is the catalyst(*ahem* global warming*ahem*). meanwhile, the real determinant is not even being addressed.

Now you have such a deep hole, that you have to spend more and more just to get back to even. By the time Obama entered office, he was looking at the highest unemployment since the great depression, and a stock market that was quickly heading for 0. At this point, there was no choice but to spend money. Roosevelt did the same thing.

that doesn't make sense. if i have a deficient bank account, i don't get back into the black by taking out a home equity loan, then spending that and taking out a loan on my parents' house. i've heard this kind of rhetoric many times, and i've yet to see any sort of economic model or heard any convincing argument that it will work. why? because it doesn't work. the economy is cured when people and firms spend money, not the gov't. and taking more of our money isn't exactly going to allow us to do that.

The Republican party has a terrible record at handling the economy. Only two American Republican presidents (since the depression) have seen good economic welfare, Eisenhower and Nixon.

minus giving illegal immigrants amnesty, reagan did wonders for the economy. by lowering taxes from 60%(thanks FDR) for highest earners to 28%. collecting more money for the IRS than had ever been collected before. moral of story:people don't mind paying taxes when they're not being raped with rusty iron rods.

Actually, there's a great misunderstanding regarding the New Deal. Many people think that the New Deal did not work. This is false. The New Deal was not passed in 1933 as many people assume it was, it was only passed by congress at that time. The supreme court was almost entirely Republican at the time, and they blocked much of the New Deal. Roosevelt threatened to add justices to the court. Wanting to keep their majority, they agreed to let it pass in 1936. In 1937, one year after the passage, the country had begun to recover. At this time, the conservative coalition (Republicans and pre-schism southern Democrats) rolled back the New Deal, leading to a setback.

were you aware that the top tax bracket was 26% before FDR was in office, to it's highest at 95%... really? pretty funny joke huh, well it's not. nobody's gonna pay that. that's where the ''liberal'' economic mindset gets you. absolutely no practicality whatsoever. New Deal=worst idea ever

[Lefty-Golfer]

WOW! so much fail, where to begin...

Well said...clap, clap, clap clap.

[Lefty-Golfer]

So, armed with no understanding of basic history, people go out and choose their idols based on party lines. Partisanship is not a good tool to use in your political beliefs. Brown is hardly a conservative. The only reason the Republican party likes the guy is because he kills the veto proof margin.

I don't have to like Brown...he is still much better then the alternative. lets face it a true conservative isn't going to win there so you take what you can get.

You historical references about the parties are a bunch of garbage...the lines have been pretty clear for the last 100 years. Debating what was liberal for a party a hundred years ago doesn't mean much by todays standards. I am not even sure what you are trying to get at. FDR was the all time champion of socialism in the history of the US, reguardless of party name or any other standard. My grandfather hated him fully right up to the day he died...we'll see if Barak is able to leap over him and kill our country forever. To try and debate that is silly and not worth my time or effort. Lucky for all of us I don't think it will happen.

[Shanks A Million]

You historical references about the parties are a bunch of garbage...the lines have been pretty clear for the last 100 years. Debating what was liberal for a party a hundred years ago doesn't mean much by todays standards. I am not even sure what you are trying to get at.

First of all, where you're getting the idea that Obama is a socialist, I'd like to know. This is about the same as calling Ron Paul a Nazi, it makes

zero sense. I'm not arguing this point, I'm telling you this as someone with a college education in political science. Obama is a moderate conservative, he falls on the capitalist side of the economic axis. His views are overwhelmingly right wing, he does not favor single payer healthcare, he does not favor banning land ownership, and he does not favor income caps. These are pretty core tenets of socialism. Secondly, what party is what does matter. People need to be able to look back and identify with history, and know where they stand. Some people follow a party because they always have, or may like a historical figure from that party. In 1860, the Republicans were the liberal party, and the Democrats were the conservative party. This does matter. One should know what the political climate was like at the time. My favorite president was Teddy Roosevelt. He was a rabid supporter of rights for women and blacks, as well as outlawing child labor. He was far ahead of his time. He was the first president to suggest social healthcare. Most of his ideas were defeated, and many were not passed for many years. He was also the reason for the later schism of 1912 in which the Republican party abandoned progressivism. He would go on to found his own progressive party and run for president. There was overlap as well (most southerners who favored segregation stayed Democrats for a while, due to the old "blue dog" stigma the Republican party still carried), and many of the issues are now forgotten. For example, liberals generally favored medicare, welfare, income tax, gay rights, rights of privacy, social security, legalization of drugs, prositution and liquor, seperation of church and state, and trade protection. Gun ownership is a strange issue, favoring gun rights is a liberal characteristic, but Americans are often backwards on the issue. Conservatives have generally favored theocracy, slavery, states rights, tradition, military and war (thought several major wars like the Revolution and the Civil War were supported by liberals and not conservatives), hierarchy, patriotism, nationalism, and the like. So, it's important to know what issues you really support, as you can see. Many Americans believe they support one philosophy, but actually find they disagree with much of their party's opinions. I think everyone should find where they stand on a Nolan chart, and figure out where to go from there.

[Lefty-Golfer]

I think you are making things much more complex then they need to be.

Can we agree that the Democrats of today generally TEND to support?

Larger government, more corporate regulation, social welfare, higher taxes, organized labor, more active government in daily life.

Republicans generally TEND to support

Smaller government, free markets / open competition, less regulation, lower taxes and states rights (not nearly enough for me but more so)

[Lefty-Golfer]

First of all, where you're getting the idea that Obama is a socialist, I'd like to know. This is about the same as calling Ron Paul a Nazi, it makes

Ok fair enough Obama is not a true textbook definition of socialist…it is all about scale. Compared to the text book he is not, compared to socialist Europe is not but he is damn close, compared to the US is a socialist….kind of like a 2 handicap golfer is a stud at most courses he plays at but terrible if you try and put him on the PGA tour…Is he a good golfer yes, is anywhere near a tour player, obviously not.

Barak’s administration in golfing terms is a 20 handicapper walking around at Q school like he has chance…he doesn’t because at that level he sucks and the rest of the golfers laugh at him…

[Leftygolfer]

I can't disagree the other lefty. Yes I know I can't spell. This thing doesn't have spell check and I admit, I am a bad speller. Thank god there is spell check in email so I don't look stupid to clients.

I find it funny that people think that liberals/democrats are better for the economy. Who was the congress behind Clinton? They are the reason we did so well. He took there ideas and policies and the country prospered. Big spending is not helping the economy. We would be MUCH better now if they would have cut taxes smartly and given businesses insentives to hire. The stimulus has failed. We are still in recession and the GDP numbers coming out are not representing how our economy is. People aren't making more, they are making less, and more people are losing jobs.

Governement health care is terrible. Ask people with it how quickly they get care.

[senorchipotle]

Well said...clap, clap, clap clap.

why, thank you, good sir.

[mdl]

I think you are making things much more complex then they need to be.

I'm not gonna get sucked into this too much cause it'll just make me angry. But I think the point you're trying to make is important. You could only view this as true through a pretty filtered lense. Look at the evidence. The Republicans have, overall, been pretty dominant over the past 30 years nationally. The rich have gotten lower taxes, but overall taxes haven't gone down. W. and a GOP house and senate presided over the largest expansion of government I think ever, certainly since FDR. Lower regulation? That's the catch-phrase, but if you look at the kind of thing the bank owned senators (almost all of the GOP and much of the Democratic party) have voted for, it's not really de-regulation as much as regulation more targeted to specifically benefit the representatives' owners at the expense of said owners' competitors.

My view is basically that the politicians in the GOP are 100% owned by their corporate donors and vote for what I view as frankly backwards social policies, and the Democratic politicians are only, say, 95% owned by their corporate donors and vote for more modern social policies. So I vote Democratic for that 5% and the lack of social backwardsness.

[Shindig]

Republicans generally TEND to support

There are, maybe, a half dozen GOP elected officials at a federal level who support these things. I suspect that fewer than half of the people who vote for the GOP favor these.

The only reduction in government and regulation we've seen is removing oversight on the big donors. We tend to see plenty more regulation to keep competition out from said big donors. There's always plenty of room in their agenda for regulating businesses that practice things they don't like. Lower taxes are meaningless if the dollar is devalued by running the printing press; the net result is less spending power (which I'd rather have than a higher number of dollars). This is why I credit - if we can call it that - George Bush (43) with raising taxes, not lowering them, despite those small checks we got in the mail at some point. The GOP actively opposes states' rights in most cases, too. Look, for example, at what happens when states legalize marijuana for various purposes (medicinal or otherwise). The Bush DEA was there to make arrests just the same. I heard Obama plans to stop this practice (DEA opposing state legal marijuana laws), and if he does, he'll be the first president since Buchanan to act pro-states' rights.

[Shanks A Million]

I find it funny that people think that liberals/democrats are better for the economy. Who was the congress behind Clinton? They are the reason we did so well. He took there ideas and policies and the country prospered. Big spending is not helping the economy. We would be MUCH better now if they would have cut taxes smartly and given businesses insentives to hire. The stimulus has failed. We are still in recession and the GDP numbers coming out are not representing how our economy is. People aren't making more, they are making less, and more people are losing jobs.

Revisionism at its best. The Democrats controlled both chambers and the presidency from 1993-1995. The greatest economic growth occurred in this time. Clinton had the power of line item veto for a time, so he could pick and choose what he wanted to veto from bills. This was later overturned by the supreme court.

I notice that when people defend the history of the Democratic success in the economy, they use charts and graphs, as well as facts and statistics. However, when defending the Republican success, they merely state that by some magical powers, unable to be measured. "Oh, the 1986 tax cuts are why the economy was good in the Clinton years..." Oh really? And as to government run healthcare, I have government run fire protection, and whenever I call them, they're here in 5 minutes or less.

[B Keller]

And as to government run healthcare, I have government run fire protection, and whenever I call them, they're here in 5 minutes or less.

I live 5 blocks from my fire station and watched them burn down a house 2 blocks from the station. The fire stared in an engine compartment and was confined to the car when they showed up. I know if my house catches fire I just have to tell them where the gun safe is, cause that's all they will be able to save!

As a fire investigator that travels around the state I get to see a lot of fire department's work. It is amazing how some of these little all volunteer departments do better jobs than big cities. They may be there in 5 minutes or less, but that doesn't mean anything will be left of your house when they are done. I worked a fire where the response time for the first engine was 4 minutes, but upon arrival they did nothing until a Battalion Chief showed up 10 minutes later. After he got there to assume command the first line was pulled in an effort to fight the fire. Just because the government offers something, it doesn't mean it works or is effective.

[Shanks A Million]

I live 5 blocks from my fire station and watched them burn down a house 2 blocks from the station. The fire stared in an engine compartment and was confined to the car when they showed up. I know if my house catches fire I just have to tell them where the gun safe is, cause that's all they will be able to save!

No offense, but you live in Texas. I lived in Texas too, and their fire departments probably shouldn't carry sharp objects. Texas is a very conservative state, and the hospitals, schools, fire departments, and police forces in Texas are woefully underfunded. When I first arrived in Texas, my schoomates refused to believe I was from Florida because "it was only beaches, look at the map, it's too thin for anyone to live there." This was 5th grade. The school system in Texas was so bad that a teacher had told my class that Lake Okechobee was a hole in the middle of Florida that went to France. I am, I repeat, NOT, making this up. I honestly wish I was.

My local fire department are absolute professionals, and they do a great job. Our local police are wonderful as well, helpful and friendly. I have had more than one occasion where the local police not only helped me, but made the extra effort to show that they cared. I even had a cop pull me over and tell me my tag light had burnt out. Remember these are the guys ran into the World Trade Center and sacrificed their own lives to save others. They even risk their own lives to protect the lives of despicable criminals who don't deserve a smack in the face so that they can be brought to proper justice. Police officers uphold the constitution every day.

[Lefty-Golfer]

No offense, but you live in Texas. I lived in Texas too, and their fire departments probably shouldn't carry sharp objects. Texas is a very conservative state, and the hospitals, schools, fire departments, and police forces in Texas are woefully underfunded. When I first arrived in Texas, my schoomates refused to believe I was from Florida because "it was only beaches, look at the map, it's too thin for anyone to live there." This was 5th grade. The school system in Texas was so bad that a teacher had told my class that Lake Okechobee was a hole in the middle of Florida that went to France. I am, I repeat, NOT, making this up. I honestly wish I was.

you are in New York City?

[Shanks A Million]

you are in New York City?

No, Ft Lauderdale.

[Fatphil]

t a teacher had told my class that Lake Okechobee was a hole in the middle of Florida that went to France. .

Lake Okechobee doesn't drain into France????!!! Damn