Gun Control Threads are SO Three Weeks Ago....

[We Come In Peace]

You're wrong about conservatives costing Maher his job. It was primarily liberals who called for his head. In fact, conservatives were the people who came to his defense: Hannity, O'Reilly, Rush, etc. all came out to defend him, not because they agreed with what he said, but because they didn't approve of firing people for making unpopular statements.

 

As far as this business of the conservatives moving to the right after 9/11, I'd like to hear an explanation for this. Normally when someone says the conservatives have moved to the far right I assume I'm just listening to a brain dead (*^*&%^$^#ass hole whose depth of thought goes no further than a recognition that he's a Democrat and should therefore mindlessly mimic the idiocy spewed by fellow Democrats, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're referring specifically to the nation building effort in Iraq as the "far right" movement. And if the only distinction I saw from Maher was his anti-war stance, which I never really held against him because he was one of the more logical opponents of the effort and I was never really sold on it from the outset anyway. I limit this "move to the right" analysis to Iraq b/c lefties were fully on board with Afghanistan, so much so that yalls hero-in-chief has said recently that "Afghanistan was the right war."

 

Where I have a problem with Maher is he's gone from more of a libertarian to a full-fledge liberal who, contrary to his recent statement, has bought into all the absurd fiscal liberalism that is crushing our economy. And no, that is not how he portrayed himself when doing Politically Incorrect.

 

Also, if I'm wrong about this move to the far right being specifically about Iraq, can you share with me the positional changes that have taken place in conservative circles over the last 10+ years, because I can't figure what they are, and despite repeated requests for clarification none of the enlightened left have been able to tell me.

There has been a massive shift to the extreme for the base of the GOP party. It drove an entire generation of voters under 35 away, and it's not getting them back. But it didn't happen over night and there wasn't a single cause. It was a slow slide down the slippery slope into the current muck that our entire political discourse is mired in currently. The reason you don't get one answer or even specific answers to your question is because it's was a multitude of events that led us here, not just one thing. And, because of the way the game is rigged now, you can't even question the GOP's moves without coming off as a progressive/socialist/democratic liberal/kitty. None of which I am. Except for the last one, probably.

 

It started in the 90s when Bush 41 sought to solidify his base by cutting deals with evangelical Christians, a minority in the party with very deep pockets and an ever-growing voice. This trend continued while Clinton was in office with the impeachment trial and the rise of right wing talk radio pundits like Rush in their ability to actually affect national policy. The rise in cable news and the creation of Fox further cut off the extremists within the party from reality as they now had powerful voices in both radio and television catering ONLY to their views. (This is not just a GOP phenomenon of course, see MSNBC, Huffington Post, Air America etc etc)

 

Like all entertainers, Rush and Fox news catered to their audience rather than pushed objective journalism, becoming every bit as biased, slanted and misleading as the mainstream media they pretend to rail against. This caused an ever escalating trend of "confrontation politics" -- this in both the MSM and the fringe. Why? Conflict sells. Why put a rational person on TV to talk about policy when you can have two lunatics whose views represent a tiny fraction of the GOP and Democratic parties on the air to stir up controversy? The problem is, after 10 years and counting of this, Joe-Public forgets what's entertainment and what's factual. We all have become so conditioned to this divisive and hostile version of full-contact politics that the entire notion of "truth" has been raped in the process. Now there are two sets "truths" presented each second. Look at discussions on this forum -- you will never see a rational discussion or one that doesn't end in name calling because both sides have their own "facts". Even in the presidential debates you had people claiming their facts were better than the opposition facts. Facts aren't debatable. There's no sliding scale with the truth. It's either true or it's not. But truth doesn't sell ad time on cable news, nor does it put money into Super Pacs and fundraising dinners.

 

You don't get the middle's view on any issue because that didn't get ratings. What got ratings and eyeballs was, and always has been, CONFLICT. Put two extremists from opposing viewpoints on, pick your horse and watch the fireworks. That's what counts as political discourse these days. And after a decade and counting of constant bombardment (from both sides) we end up where we're at now -- f u c k e d.

 

The effect has been to radicalize an already radical sect within the Republican party. You watch enough "news" coverage screaming at you that we're days away from being blown up by a "terrorist" or that the leader of the opposition party was really a closeted Marxist who has designs on destroying everything you know and love about the country and eventually the fringe viewpoint becomes the mainstream viewpoint. So much so that Joe-Public can't see the difference. Worse, if Joe-Public tries to find the "truth" on his own he has no where to turn. There's no truth on the internet, just someone's take on it.

 

But back to the GOP...

 

Suddenly the fringe has become the spokespeople for the party. Their views reinforced daily by entertainers pretending to be journalists. So much so that even the notion of working together across partisan lines, became a sin. Moderate GOP leaders had no where to turn. For evidence, go back through and look at how the voices within the party who dared to speak out against W's absolute betrayal of his conservative core by pushing through albatrosses like DHS, The Patriot Act, NDAA and 2 wars -- these guys and gals were not just removed from office by a vindictive electorate, they were flogged in the public square for weeks by the likes of Hannity, Rush, and Rupert Murdoch from 2001-2008.

 

The message was received.

 

The GOP, a party with a long tradition of bringing in outside voices to make their party better, started looking at any opposing viewpoint as a threat rather than an opinion. This has always signaled the intellectual death of a party. This is a centralist nation. Or at least it was. For decades the GOP had room for moderates -- fiscal conservatives who were socially liberal -- no more.

Edited January 27, 2013 by We Come In Peace

[TakeYouToTasker]

You're also denying the fact that the military is a meritocracy.

 

There has been a massive shift to the extreme...

While your bias is showing, your thesis is not wholely incorrect, though it started long before Bush 41, it started long before Robert Bork, and it started long before Jimmy Carter.

 

I'm going to recommend a book, which given your commentary, I think you'll enjoy greatly; though I've recommended it here before every time this issue flares up. It's titled The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, by Daniel J. Boorstin.

Edited January 27, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[Cinga]

Any reasoned analysis of what our military actually is, reveals it to in fact be a giant socialist institution well beyond it's surface level purpose (which is of course, necessary and important as I have acknowledged)

 

Then link these "reasoned analysis" of yours, so we may be enlightened as well....

 

Or just...

 

go away now....

[TakeYouToTasker]

Then link these "reasoned analysis" of yours, so we may be enlightened as well....

 

Or just...

 

go away now....

Many aspects certainly are socialist, but his analysis exists in a vaccum. Worse yet, a vaccum filled by the philosophy of General Wesley Clark, who believes in government by junta.

Edited January 27, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[We Come In Peace]

You're also denying the fact that the military is a meritocracy.

 

 

While your bias is showing, your thesis is not wholely incorrect, though it started long before Bush 41, it started long before Robert Bork, and it started long before Jimmy Carter.

 

I'm going to recommend a book, which given your commentary, I think you'll enjoy greatly; though I've recommended it here before every time this issue flares up. It's titled The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, by Daniel J. Boorstin.

Thanks for that. I'm definitely biased in the sense that I'm one of the fallen Republicans in search of a party. But I was trying to keep the (bloviated) answer to Rob's question about the GOP. The Progressive movement has done the same thing in their own way on the left.

 

There's two ways to look at that. It's either the law of unintended consequences of the information age or it's been done by design. Of course the later only applies if you believe in a massive conspiracy. Either way, we're in a dark, dark place in terms of our national discourse. If we can't freely engage one another in an exchange of ideas -- even ones that challenge our perceived core values -- then our republic is done for.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Thanks for that. I'm definitely biased in the sense that I'm one of the fallen Republicans in search of a party. But I was trying to keep the (bloviated) answer to Rob's question about the GOP. The Progressive movement has done the same thing in their own way on the left.

 

There's two ways to look at that. It's either the law of unintended consequences of the information age or it's been done by design. Of course the later only applies if you believe in a massive conspiracy. Either way, we're in a dark, dark place in terms of our national discourse. If we can't freely engage one another in an exchange of ideas -- even ones that challenge our perceived core values -- then our republic is done for.

It's more than a little bit of both, and yes, our republic is done.

[Rob's House]

But back to the GOP...

 

Suddenly the fringe has become the spokespeople for the party. Their views reinforced daily by entertainers pretending to be journalists. So much so that even the notion of working together across partisan lines, became a sin. Moderate GOP leaders had no where to turn. For evidence, go back through and look at how the voices within the party who dared to speak out against W's absolute betrayal of his conservative core by pushing through albatrosses like DHS, The Patriot Act, NDAA and 2 wars -- these guys and gals were not just removed from office by a vindictive electorate, they were flogged in the public square for weeks by the likes of Hannity, Rush, and Rupert Murdoch from 2001-2008.

 

The message was received.

 

The GOP, a party with a long tradition of bringing in outside voices to make their party better, started looking at any opposing viewpoint as a threat rather than an opinion. This has always signaled the intellectual death of a party. This is a centralist nation. Or at least it was. For decades the GOP had room for moderates -- fiscal conservatives who were socially liberal -- no more.

I don't think this is a fair and accurate assessment, although I appreciat you taking the time to express your view. I think you're referring less to the actual positions of conservatives and Republicans and more about the perception of them. A few points to ponder:

 

- The evangelical crowd is far less powerful than it was in the 80s. Even in conservative circles these guys are primarily the minority and most conservative leaning people, many of whom are religious and/or respect the views of religious people, roll their eyes at the holier-than-thou bible thumpers.

 

- The radical viewpoint becoming the mainstream viewpoint is not exclusive to GOP, nor did they start it. I still recall the days when the liberals got over their 9/11 unity hangover and began raging on Bush and anything and everything GOP was a scandal and an outrage plastered all across the news. I'll agree with you that the "news" has become absurd (I think of it as Pro-wrestling for political junkies) but I don't see how you lay that on the right and absolve the left. Like you became more left as you saw the radicalization of the right, I became more right as I watched the radicalization of the left.

 

- As a fiscally conservative and social liberal (save abortion which is disgusting but I'm not pushing for congressional mandates on) I see little for me in the Democrat party. I see a bunch of socialists (which is somehow a dirty word) whose primary focus is incrementally trying to inch us closer and closer to their utopian government under the guise of "social justice". I see very little on the national stage to back off the "war on drugs" or any other meaningful social issue that affects people. More and more I see a group that claims an interest in preserving liberties on one hand, while systematically revoking them with the other.

 

Basically, when it comes down to issues, it's hard to find where the right has moved right over the last 15 years. 15 years ago the right was against entitlement expansion, against tax hikes, and against socialized medicine. They still have all those stances. On the cultural/social front, all the gay marriage, drugs, abortion, etc. stances are teh same ones they had back then too. Republicans have been for protecting the border and preventing illegal immigration all along. While you've explained how your perception of the Republican party and conservatives has changed, you've not established how stances on issues have changed. By contrast, the Democrats have moved much farther to the left. Sure, they've always more or less been on the same side of the issues, but a lot of the crap they try today they wouldn't have dared try 20 years ago - okay, they tried Hillary care, but you see how quickly that got put to rest. I don't blame the party, because they always wanted to be statists, but the culture has become more liberal, and as it has the left has become more liberal. The right has stayed basically where it was, and by comparison to the ever leftward moving libs, looks more right by comparison.

 

It's like that song in the 90s by Goldfinger: You have changed cuz I still feel the same.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Rob's House

[dayman]

I don't think this is a fair and accurate assessment, although I appreciat you taking the time to express your view. I think you're referring less to the actual positions of conservatives and Republicans and more about the perception of them. A few points to ponder:

 

- The evangelical crowd is far less powerful than it was in the 80s. Even in conservative circles these guys are primarily the minority and most conservative leaning people, many of whom are religious and/or respect the views of religious people, roll their eyes at the holier-than-thou bible thumpers.

 

- The radical viewpoint becoming the mainstream viewpoint is not exclusive to GOP, nor did they start it. I still recall the days when the liberals got over their 9/11 unity hangover and began raging on Bush and anything and everything GOP was a scandal and an outrage plastered all across the news. I'll agree with you that the "news" has become absurd (I think of it as Pro-wrestling for political junkies) but I don't see how you lay that on the right and absolve the left. Like you became more left as you saw the radicalization of the right, I became more right as I watched the radicalization of the left.

 

- As a fiscally conservative and social liberal (save abortion which is disgusting but I'm not pushing for congressional mandates on) I see little for me in the Democrat party. I see a bunch of socialists (which is somehow a dirty word) whose primary focus is incrementally trying to inch us closer and closer to their utopian government under the guise of "social justice". I see very little on the national stage to back off the "war on drugs" or any other meaningful social issue that affects people. More and more I see a group that claims an interest in preserving liberties on one hand, while systematically revoking them with the other.

 

Basically, when it comes down to issues, it's hard to find where the right has moved right over the last 15 years. 15 years ago the right was against entitlement expansion, against tax hikes, and against socialized medicine. They still have all those stances. On the cultural/social front, all the gay marriage, drugs, abortion, etc. stances are teh same ones they had back then too. Republicans have been for protecting the border and preventing illegal immigration all along. While you've explained how your perception of the Republican party and conservatives has changed, you've not established how stances on issues have changed. By contrast, the Democrats have moved much farther to the left. Sure, they've always more or less been on the same side of the issues, but a lot of the crap they try today they wouldn't have dared try 20 years ago - okay, they tried Hillary care, but you see how quickly that got put to rest. I don't blame the party, because they always wanted to be statists, but the culture has become more liberal, and as it has the left has become more liberal. The right has stayed basically where it was, and by contrast to the ever leftward moving libs, looks more right by comparison.

 

It's like that song in the 90s by Goldfinger: You have changed cuz I still feel the same.

 

While an interesting post, it's hard to look at the last GOP primary and be convinced. I mean you can say that a theoretical party has always been against X so they haven't moved on that issue, but if they were against X expanding and trying to shrink it a bit before and now they're making X their number 1 issue and trying to completely destroy it...then they moved on X. BTW X here wasn't meant to represent any real issue so don't read into it...

[Rob's House]

While an interesting post, it's hard to look at the last GOP primary and be convinced. I mean you can say that a theoretical party has always been against X so they haven't moved on that issue, but if they were against X expanding and trying to shrink it a bit before and now they're making X their number 1 issue and trying to completely destroy it...then they moved on X. BTW X here wasn't meant to represent any real issue so don't read into it...

It never is.

[B-Man]

Yep, the party that nominated George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney is way too far to the right.......................lol

 

 

 

 

(see how silly misconceptions and propaganda can look)

Edited January 28, 2013 by B-Man

[Rob's House]

Yep, the party that nominated George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney is way too far to the right.......................lol

 

 

 

 

(see how silly misconceptions and propaganda can look)

Yes! Love it. It's so true.

[dayman]

Well Jeb may not see it exactly that way...Bob Dole may have a thing or two to say as well...

[3rdnlng]

Well Jeb may not see it exactly that way...Bob Dole may have a thing or two to say as well...

 

What, how to get it up at the age of 90?

[B-Man]

[B-Large]

Thank you for illustrating the incremental step towards full blown socialism. I know you guys, in your infinitely obtuse arrogance like to scoff and chortle at the idea that your bloated government entitlement schemes could ever amount to anything more than reasonable and measured attempts to help the helpless, but medicare as much as anything shows how your plans end up. Medicare was supposed to be a safety net for elderly people who couldn't afford treatment. Now it has become the default health care plan for elderly, and has swallowed that industry such that everyone except the very rich has to use medicare. I know in the wilfully unimaginative mind of a common lib, a mind that is incapable of understanding that the system would have evolved differently had medicare never been created as it was, that without medicare everyone currently receiving medicare would be left out in the cold, but that's not the reality. The system would have evolved differently and it's hard to envision a system that would have been less efficient. Plus, medicare is included in FICA taxes, so unlike the overwhelming majority of government entitlement programs, at least those on medicare can argue that they paid into a system. Sure it may be a ponzi scheme, but they weren't given the choice of whether to pick that system or another. So your analogy here fails miserably.

 

And the military are employees being paid for a job. It's hardly similar. Actually it's not at all similar. It couldn't be more dissimilar. You're really grasping at straws here.

 

1. Medicare was created because it was almost impossible to find a priavte insurer who would write a policy on an aging citizen

2. Medicare is adminstratively very easy to work with and less expensive compared to commercial carriers.

3. Medicare is Popular with enrolees.

4. Patients should have the option of forgoing MC and enrolling in commercial insurance, but good luck finding it when most Medicare aged citziens aleady have an uninsurable application

[TakeYouToTasker]

1. Medicare was created because it was almost impossible to find a priavte insurer who would write a policy on an aging citizen

2. Medicare is adminstratively very easy to work with and less expensive compared to commercial carriers.

3. Medicare is Popular with enrolees.

4. Patients should have the option of forgoing MC and enrolling in commercial insurance, but good luck finding it when most Medicare aged citziens aleady have an uninsurable application

A huge amount of doctors are shifting away from accepting Medicare as it doesn't pay them enough to cover their overhead, and earn a wage.

[B-Large]

A huge amount of doctors are shifting away from accepting Medicare as it doesn't pay them enough to cover their overhead, and earn a wage.

 

A huge amount of doctors are also closing their stand alone pratices and going to work for a physcian group, many affilited with major healthcare systems, because they can see pateints and not worry about malpratice coverage, rent, staffing, etc- they make less, but the freedom is much better. Its probably not much different than a small grocery story throwing in the towel when walmat pops up, to hard to compete when you are so small.