Extremist Senators

[Harlan Huckleby]

A handful of conservative posters are adamant in rejecting the notion that the U.S. Senate is strongly centrist. I'd really like to read their list of Senators from the right wing that they would label "extremist." This should be damn interesting. RetailGuy, Bobblehead, AynRand: let her rip.


(The U.S. House is very different, plenty of people on the fringe of both the Democratic and Republican parties spring-up in the many safe congressional districts.)

[bobblehead]

I reject the centrist label outright, the senate is more LIBERAL than the house so your premise is flawed from the start....not uncommon.

Problem is that liberals like yourself define liberal as centrist and conservative as radical right out of the gate....you also consider bi-partisan to mean republicans caving to the policies of the left, but would never call 20 democratic senators voting to drill in anwar bi-partisan.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I reject the centrist label outright, the senate is more LIBERAL than the house so your premise is flawed from the start....not uncommon.

Problem is that liberals like yourself define liberal as centrist and conservative as radical right out of the gate....you also consider bi-partisan to mean republicans caving to the policies of the left, but would never call 20 democratic senators voting to drill in anwar bi-partisan.

Your rant of old canards and generalizations is predictable. I take it you are conceding that there are no "extremist" right wingers in the Senate, so you resort to calling the Senate a liberal institution, which allows for some "extremists" on the left.

The Republicans have controlled the House and Senate for most of the last 20 years, so suggesting Congress inherently is left or right is plain ignorance.

Look, this discussion began when some knee-jerk partisians thoughtlessly claimed that Senate voting records, as interpreted by advocacy groups, can show Joe Biden to be an "extremist." I just made the OBVIOUS point that extremists are rare in the Senate, and a Senator who votes along party lines is not necessarily extremist.

[bobblehead]

The Republicans have controlled the House and Senate for most of the last 20 years, so suggesting Congress inherently is left or right is plain ignorance.



Huh?? rewriting history again. First you tell me it was the democrats that pushed thru civil rights, now the republicans have been in control for 20 years. What was that republican revolution thing 12 years ago all about then...you know, where they got control of house and senate for the first time in 40 years?

[Harlan Huckleby]

The congress closely reflects the politics of the country.

I was really trying to avoid the issue of whether the House or the Senate is liberal/conservative. That is irrelevant, it fluxuates. The argument is over distribution, and you don't want to concede the obvious truth that extremists, as judged by the mood of the country, do not pop-up in the Senate very often, the fringy people are almost entirely in the House.

Give a list of extremist, right-wing Senators, and maybe you got a leg to stand on.

Call the left-leaning Senators "extremist" is just an irrational cheap shot.

[bobblehead]

I reject the centrist label outright, the senate is more LIBERAL than the house so your premise is flawed from the start....not uncommon.

Problem is that liberals like yourself define liberal as centrist and conservative as radical right out of the gate....you also consider bi-partisan to mean republicans caving to the policies of the left, but would never call 20 democratic senators voting to drill in anwar bi-partisan.

Your rant of old canards and generalizations is predictable. I take it you are conceding that there are no "extremist" right wingers in the Senate, so you resort to calling the Senate a liberal institution, which allows for some "extremists" on the left.

The Republicans have controlled the House and Senate for most of the last 20 years, so suggesting Congress inherently is left or right is plain ignorance.

Look, this discussion began when some knee-jerk partisians thoughtlessly claimed that Senate voting records, as interpreted by advocacy groups, can show Joe Biden to be an "extremist." I just made the OBVIOUS point that extremists are rare in the Senate, and a Senator who votes along party lines is not necessarily extremist.

I have no idea how you define extremists republicans? You mean guys against big government and tax hikes...sure, there are plenty of those. You mean guys beholden to the oil companies? there are some of those too I'm sure.

I'm not sure what you mean about "Your rant of old canards and generalizations is predictable" but you sure sound really smart and that is all that matters to the left...education over accomplishment right? I didn't speak any generalizations at all, I very specifically stated my opinion, I can back it with certain facts. Like this. Most every bill that the house sends to the senate ends up about 10% higher in spending. You call that centrist, I call it leftist.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You, personally, are just to the right of the average american. That's all there is to it. So you want to label the centrists "liberal" and the liberals "extremists."

Same thing goes for Kiwon, Ayn Rand, and I suppose for RetailGal.

[SkinBasket]

You, personally, are just to the right of the average american. That's all there is to it. So you want to label the centrists "liberal" and the liberals "extremists."

Ah, Harlan, Prince of Double Standards and Duke of the Isle of Tard. When bobblehead uses this argument, you make accusations of old canards and generalizations. Then you turn around and use it 4 posts later. That isn't very sporting of you.

[The Leaper]

Obama and Biden are extremely liberal. Anyone with half a brain can figure that out.

One comes from the poor neighborhoods of Chicago and the other is a Northeast elite.

It just pisses the liberals off that the GOP nominee for once actually is more of a mainstream politician than their guy, and is using that mantra against them. They aren't quite sure what to make of it yet.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Still waiting for the extremist republicans. :oops:

[bobblehead]

Still waiting for the extremist republicans. :oops:

I'm still waiting for a definition....like what policies make one extreme republican, then I can answer it, I'm sure there are some.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Still waiting for the extremist republicans. :oops:

I'm still waiting for a definition....like what policies make one extreme republican, then I can answer it, I'm sure there are some.

What makes an extreme democrat?

[SkinBasket]

What makes an extreme democrat?

Well, in an effort to further this enlightening debate, I googled "Xtreme democrat." Because, really, whats more extreme than Xtreme?

Well this is what the internet tells me is an extreme democrat:

http://gloriabrame.com/images/xtreme.jpg

There. Now you guys have something to work with.

[Freak Out]

What makes an extreme democrat?

Well, in an effort to further this enlightening debate, I googled "Xtreme democrat." Because, really, whats more extreme than Xtreme?

Well this is what the internet tells me is an extreme democrat:

http://gloriabrame.com/images/xtreme.jpg

There. Now you guys have something to work with.

That should be enough to get Tex to jump the fence over to the lefty side. :lol:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I tried the same thing for extreme repubs.

http://www.jkasquires.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/homer-plus-the-duke-equals-dubya.jpg

[Maxie the Taxi]

Hey Harlan,

You've titled this thread "Extremist Senators." Since you were the first among us to use this term, what the hell is your definition of "Extremist?"

(I might be prepared to agree with your premise, depending on your definition.)

[HowardRoark]

Hey Harlan,

You've titled this thread "Extremist Senators." Since you were the first among us to use this term, what the hell is your definition of "Extremist?"

(I might be prepared to agree with your premise, depending on your definition.)

I agree with this. From a Conservative point of view, I would say letting a baby born premature to die alone in a closet is extreme. From a Liberal's point of view, this may not be extreme at all. It truly is a matter of definition. I could start a laundry list of "extreme" liberal views.

What are extreme Conservatives? Again, a real question.

[falco]

i can't stand the dems or the repubs, but i do wish evan bayh would have run, he's a guy i could get behind (not in a gay way though) (not that theres anything wrong with that)

[falco]

Hey Harlan,

You've titled this thread "Extremist Senators." Since you were the first among us to use this term, what the hell is your definition of "Extremist?"

(I might be prepared to agree with your premise, depending on your definition.)

I agree with this. From a Conservative point of view, I would say letting a baby born premature to die alone in a closet is extreme. From a Liberal's point of view, this may not be extreme at all. It truly is a matter of definition. I could start a laundry list of "extreme" liberal views.

What are extreme Conservatives? Again, a real question.

i would be against that scenario with the baby, unless of course it was you, in which case someone would be doing us all a favor

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hey Harlan,

You've titled this thread "Extremist Senators." Since you were the first among us to use this term, what the hell is your definition of "Extremist?"

(I might be prepared to agree with your premise, depending on your definition.)

I agree with this. From a Conservative point of view, I would say letting a baby born premature to die alone in a closet is extreme. From a Liberal's point of view, this may not be extreme at all. It truly is a matter of definition. I could start a laundry list of "extreme" liberal views.

What are extreme Conservatives? Again, a real question.



i would be against that scenario with the baby, unless of course it was you, in which case someone would be doing us all a favor

Burn! :lol:

[bobblehead]

Hey Harlan,

You've titled this thread "Extremist Senators." Since you were the first among us to use this term, what the hell is your definition of "Extremist?"

(I might be prepared to agree with your premise, depending on your definition.)

I agree with this. From a Conservative point of view, I would say letting a baby born premature to die alone in a closet is extreme. From a Liberal's point of view, this may not be extreme at all. It truly is a matter of definition. I could start a laundry list of "extreme" liberal views.

What are extreme Conservatives? Again, a real question.

I think the big problem here is that if Ty or HH put into policy what they consider an extreme republican I would probably say "cool, elect him". I am socially a moderate/liberal, but as I've said all along, my liberal social views end at the exact point that you ask me to pay for someone elses "rights". I'm even prochoice up to 11 weeks, but to tell me that the gov't has to pay for abortions....well, I got issues with that.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

First off, the NJ ranking system is a joke. And, what a surprise, that the past 2 dem nominees are the most liberal. :roll:

Why do i say that? Senators’ scores are based on three categories — economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy. Kerry didn’t have enough votes in two of the categories, but National Journal gave him a score anyway, announced that he was the chamber’s #1 liberal, and gave Republicans a hammer they used every day for months. Four years later, National Journal is now willing to concede that the rating was a sham — a flawed result based on a flawed methodology.
:oops:

And even today, the methodology is suspect. Charles Green argues that some senators weren’t given scores if they missed too many votes. Obama missed a full third of the 99 votes used for the ratings, but that wasn’t enough to disqualify him from the rankings. Why not? Because National Journal’s arbitrary standards, known only to the publication’s editors, say so.

The whole conserv vs. liberal is a joke when assigning values to yes or no votes.

Why is, for example, requiring 100% inspections of shipping containers for national security threats a “liberal” position? How is establishing English as the official language a “conservative” position? Is a position “conservative” or “liberal” for cutting subsidies to private business to offer student loans? This study says it is “liberal” to do so, although that position is practically of no difference from Ron Paul’s! :roll:

Any ranking system that has Biden more liberal than Feingold or Sanders has to be taken with a grain of salt.

This is philistinism masquerading as social science — it’s the U.S. News College Guide of Washington politics.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Hey Harlan,

You've titled this thread "Extremist Senators." Since you were the first among us to use this term, what the hell is your definition of "Extremist?"

(I might be prepared to agree with your premise, depending on your definition.)

I just meant people who are on the far edge of the democratic or republican party. For instance, Dennis Kusinich or Maxine Watters are far left in the Dem Party. Dan Burton, John Boehner on right in Republican Party. These people almost always are found in the House, not the Senate.

Joe Biden is not like Dennis Kusinich.

[mraynrand]

I tried the same thing for extreme repubs.

http://www.jkasquires.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/homer-plus-the-duke-equals-dubya.jpg

I totally agree with this. John Wayne: proud, faithful, confident in his ideals, tough-minded, smart, true and blue American and Homer Simpson, a basic, God-fearing, generally good-natured, middle American with foibles that all non-elitists have. Right on the money Ty.

[mraynrand]

Hey Harlan,

You've titled this thread "Extremist Senators." Since you were the first among us to use this term, what the hell is your definition of "Extremist?"

(I might be prepared to agree with your premise, depending on your definition.)

I just meant people who are on the far edge of the democratic or republican party. For instance, Dennis Kusinich or Maxine Watters are far left in the Dem Party. Dan Burton, John Boehner on right in Republican Party. These people almost always are found in the House, not the Senate.

Joe Biden is not like Dennis Kusinich.

Harlan, there are 100 Senators and 435 reps. Thus the Bell curve is taller with wider tails, allowing for even more fruit loops at the extremes. There's nothing wrong with your idea that the House is more extreme than the Senate, but that doesn't negate the fact that the Senate has it's extreme members. Still, I'd like you to tell me how Boehner is extreme to the right the same way Kucinich or a Tubbs-Jones is (was) to the left. What is the right's equivalent of those calling for impeachment, those witnessing Aliens/UFOs and those and blocking election result certification?

[Kiwon]

Joe Biden is not like Dennis Kusinich.

He's also not as centrist as Hillary Clinton.

Clinton gets 18,000,000 votes in the Primary.

More votes than Obama and Biden COMBINED.

So why is she kicked to the curb in favor of a someone who got 170,000 votes?

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1077828/Hillary-Clinton-Got-More-Popular-Votes-than-Barack-Obama-and-Joe-Biden-Combined

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I tried the same thing for extreme repubs.



I totally agree with this. John Wayne: proud, faithful, confident in his ideals, tough-minded, smart, true and blue American and Homer Simpson, a basic, God-fearing, generally good-natured, middle American with foibles that all non-elitists have. Right on the money Ty.

It is no wonder you have such problems. That isn't john wayne, that is a character in a movie. A cowboy. LOL

Smart: How so? College degree? No. Actor. Yes.

Wayne: NOt willing to fight for his country. Yep...just like a long line of conservatives.

Values: Married 3 times..FAMILY VALUES!!!!

Wayne, "Ibelieve in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility." And, people wonder why conservatives are linked with racism.

Homer: He is a moron. I guess you haven't watched the show.

[mraynrand]

Wayne: NOt willing to fight for his country. Yep...just like a long line of conservatives.



I thought you said it wasn't Wayne, but a character in the movies. I'll go with that - the Character Wayne represents - that's what I was talking about. Just in case you're confused, Homer isn't a real guy either.

[mraynrand]

Homer: He is a moron. I guess you haven't watched the show.

In case you didn't look at your own post, it was Wayne + Homer. Even a moron (IQ 70) knows that if you add IQ 70 + IQ of the John Wayne character (about 120) - you get 190 - a genius. You really ought to try to keep up.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Hey Harlan,

You've titled this thread "Extremist Senators." Since you were the first among us to use this term, what the hell is your definition of "Extremist?"

(I might be prepared to agree with your premise, depending on your definition.)

I just meant people who are on the far edge of the democratic or republican party. For instance, Dennis Kusinich or Maxine Watters are far left in the Dem Party. Dan Burton, John Boehner on right in Republican Party. These people almost always are found in the House, not the Senate.

Joe Biden is not like Dennis Kusinich.

By your definition, I tend to agree with you. The reasons stated by mraynrand below are sensible. However, your point that congressional districts are small while states are large is the diciding factor which leads to those holding more extreme views being elected.

All that being said, I don't think your defintion of extreme has anything to do with liberal vs conservative. I think it has more to do with nut case democrats vs nut case republicans. In other words, IMO your "extreme" = "nut case."

If we try to compare "doctrinaire" liberals to "doctrinaire" conservatives (doctrinaire meaning holding views closest to the liberal or conservative ideal) I think both ends of that spectrum can be found in the Senate.

Without a doubt Barack Obama is a doctrinaire liberal. His views or votes are rarely sullied by considerations other than political philosophy. At the other end of the spectrum, take Sen. Burr from NC.

I know Burr very well. He was my congressman in NC. His views are virtually always determined by his political philosophy of hard core conservatism.

Obviously, partisan politics always play a part in an organization like the Senate, but I would argue that the further to the top and bottom of the list the less partisan politics are at work.

The truth is the Democratic Party does not equal the ideal of liberal political philosophy and the Republican Party does not equal the ideal of conservative political philosophy. The political philosophy "ideals" of these respective political parties can probably be found in the center.

[retailguy]

Harlan, in spite of the fact that you insulted me, I'll be happy to participate in your little game. I will need to know what views you consider to be "extreme" right wing. Then I'll give you views that I consider "extreme" left wing and you can do likewise.

I can answer definitively that John McCain will NOT be on my list.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Joe Biden is not like Dennis Kusinich.

He's also not as centrist as Hillary Clinton.

Clinton gets 18,000,000 votes in the Primary.

More votes than Obama and Biden COMBINED.

So why is she kicked to the curb in favor of a someone who got 170,000 votes?

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1077828/Hillary-Clinton-Got-More-Popular-Votes-than-Barack-Obama-and-Joe-Biden-Combined

Good question. Perhaps W or his father could explain it to you. :roll:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Wayne: NOt willing to fight for his country. Yep...just like a long line of conservatives.



I thought you said it wasn't Wayne, but a character in the movies. I'll go with that - the Character Wayne represents - that's what I was talking about. Just in case you're confused, Homer isn't a real guy either.

I said it wasn't, but you CLEARLY wrote WAYNE.

Nice try though.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Homer: He is a moron. I guess you haven't watched the show.

In case you didn't look at your own post, it was Wayne + Homer. Even a moron (IQ 70) knows that if you add IQ 70 + IQ of the John Wayne character (about 120) - you get 190 - a genius. You really ought to try to keep up.

You show an alarming lack of knowledge once again.

If the progeny of two people resulted in adding of their IQ the human race wouldn't be in the position we are in today.

You and your wife certainly didn't produce children with scores of 200 did you.

Try and keep up.

[Kiwon]

I tried the same thing for extreme repubs.



I totally agree with this. John Wayne: proud, faithful, confident in his ideals, tough-minded, smart, true and blue American and Homer Simpson, a basic, God-fearing, generally good-natured, middle American with foibles that all non-elitists have. Right on the money Ty.

It is no wonder you have such problems. That isn't john wayne, that is a character in a movie. A cowboy. LOL

Smart: How so? College degree? No. Actor. Yes.

Wayne: NOt willing to fight for his country. Yep...just like a long line of conservatives.

Values: Married 3 times..FAMILY VALUES!!!!

Wayne, "Ibelieve in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility." And, people wonder why conservatives are linked with racism.

Homer: He is a moron. I guess you haven't watched the show.

Homer's not the only moron. TB says that a cowboy character in a movie, whose name is not John Wayne, (what's his name, by the way?) has no college degree, does some acting, is not willing to fight for his country, is a bad husband and segregationalist.

How do you know all these things about this cowboy character in a movie?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, there are 100 Senators and 435 reps. Thus the Bell curve is taller with wider tails, allowing for even more fruit loops at the extremes.

That is not why House members are far more conservative/liberal, the distribution itself is much flatter.

Senators have to appeal to voters across an entire state. That forces them to the center.

Congress people are elected by district, and district lines are often drawn to create "safe" districts, consisting of reliably Democratic or Republican voters. Redistricting has greatly polarized the House in the last 20 years (I forget when exactly the redistricting was done.) Dennis Kusinich could NEVER be elected by the entire state of Ohio, but he appeals to a district of urban voters around Cleveland, I believe.

This is not a theory of mine, its fairly common knowledge.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, in spite of the fact that you insulted me, I'll be happy to participate in your little game. I will need to know what views you consider to be "extreme" right wing. Then I'll give you views that I consider "extreme" left wing and you can do likewise.

I can answer definitively that John McCain will NOT be on my list.

Sorry Retail, this is too much work and arguing for me, although it would be an interesting argument. I was just trying to make a narrow point about why Senators tend to the center.

If we go by issues, I'm sure half of the Senate is going to wind up in somebody's "extremist" bin.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I tried the same thing for extreme repubs.



I totally agree with this. John Wayne: proud, faithful, confident in his ideals, tough-minded, smart, true and blue American and Homer Simpson, a basic, God-fearing, generally good-natured, middle American with foibles that all non-elitists have. Right on the money Ty.

It is no wonder you have such problems. That isn't john wayne, that is a character in a movie. A cowboy. LOL

Smart: How so? College degree? No. Actor. Yes.

Wayne: NOt willing to fight for his country. Yep...just like a long line of conservatives.

Values: Married 3 times..FAMILY VALUES!!!!

Wayne, "Ibelieve in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility." And, people wonder why conservatives are linked with racism.

Homer: He is a moron. I guess you haven't watched the show.

Homer's not the only moron. TB says that a cowboy character in a movie, whose name is not John Wayne, (what's his name, by the way?) has no college degree, does some acting, is not willing to fight for his country, is a bad husband and segregationalist.

How do you know all these things about this cowboy character in a movie?

THe character: Could be any one of his iconic roles. The point of the addition was cowboy plus moron equals bush. Not Wayne.

Rand used the name wayne..not i. So, i just mentioned some pertinent facts about wayne.

Though i wouldn't say segregationist.

Try to follow along.

[HowardRoark]

By your definition, I tend to agree with you. The reasons stated by mraynrand below are sensible. However, your point that congressional districts are small while states are large is the diciding factor which leads to those holding more extreme views being elected.

All that being said, I don't think your defintion of extreme has anything to do with liberal vs conservative. I think it has more to do with nut case democrats vs nut case republicans. In other words, IMO your "extreme" = "nut case."

If we try to compare "doctrinaire" liberals to "doctrinaire" conservatives (doctrinaire meaning holding views closest to the liberal or conservative ideal) I think both ends of that spectrum can be found in the Senate.

Without a doubt Barack Obama is a doctrinaire liberal. His views or votes are rarely sullied by considerations other than political philosophy. At the other end of the spectrum, take Sen. Burr from NC.

I know Burr very well. He was my congressman in NC. His views are virtually always determined by his political philosophy of hard core conservatism.

Obviously, partisan politics always play a part in an organization like the Senate, but I would argue that the further to the top and bottom of the list the less partisan politics are at work.

The truth is the Democratic Party does not equal the ideal of liberal political philosophy and the Republican Party does not equal the ideal of conservative political philosophy. The political philosophy "ideals" of these respective political parties can probably be found in the center.

Excellent post.

I truly wonder what Obama’s deal is. Is he just a myopic kid who has set forth the goal of becoming President; once he gets there he will have no idea what to do.

Or, is he died in the wool Socialist who wants to dramatically change things to that idealism. When I read through his website, it certainly appears as though he is a true Socialist. But, he also changes his views/ideas so quick, I wonder if he even knows what he is….other than power hungry.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Liberals hate John Wayne. Elvis too. I know because P.E. told me so.

Crucification ain't no fiction. The so-called chosen frozen. Apologies made to whoever pleases. Still they got me like Jesus.

[mraynrand]

I said it wasn't, but you CLEARLY wrote WAYNE.

Nice try though.

So what? Next time I'll write down all his characters to be clear. Actually, no I won't - because if you're too stupid to figure it out, I'm not going to help you.

[mraynrand]

Homer: He is a moron. I guess you haven't watched the show.

In case you didn't look at your own post, it was Wayne + Homer. Even a moron (IQ 70) knows that if you add IQ 70 + IQ of the John Wayne character (about 120) - you get 190 - a genius. You really ought to try to keep up.

You show an alarming lack of knowledge once again.

If the progeny of two people resulted in adding of their IQ the human race wouldn't be in the position we are in today.



Are you suggesting that a union between a cartoon character and a fictional cowboy played by John Wayne (or John Wayne if you prefer) would result in progeny? Talk about an alarming lack of knowledge! And an alarming lack of a sense of humor.

[The Leaper]

The only thing more extreme than Joe Biden is this thread.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I truly wonder what Obama’s deal is. Is he just a myopic kid who has set forth the goal of becoming President; once he gets there he will have no idea what to do.

Or, is he died in the wool Socialist who wants to dramatically change things to that idealism. When I read through his website, it certainly appears as though he is a true Socialist. But, he also changes his views/ideas so quick, I wonder if he even knows what he is….other than power hungry.

I read Obama’s books: Dreams from My Father, and The Audacity of Hope. The first is extremely well-written and offers a very good insight into what makes him tick as a person. The second is an overview of his thoughts and beliefs on major issues. I highly recommend both.

My impression of Obama, for what it’s worth, is that he’s a genuine and sincere altruist. He’s not an ideologue. In fact, he’s more an extreme pragmatist, willing to consider any and all opinions on a particular issue. He is logical and relies on historical experience and his own personal experience to settle his opinion on a particular issue or policy. That his bottom-line opinions generally correspond with leftist ideology is more accidental than purposeful, at least that’s how I believe he sees it. He might say, for instance, that the left’s ideology happens to correspond to his outlook, but it is not the root cause of his outlook.

You know what I mean. We’re all naïve and altruistic when we’re young. We see poverty on the one hand and wealth on the other and say: “Damn, the solution is obvious. Just distribute the wealth more evenly. Take a little from the rich guy and give it to the poor guy!”

Fortunately, most of us get wiser as we grow older. We study economics, human behavior and moral, political and social philosophy. We come to understand that the Marxian prescription (From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.) is a medicine worse than the disease when applied to a society.

The problem is it requires an understanding of economic and social political theory to expose and debunk such social quackery. Unfortunately, Obama’s aversion to political theory and ideology extends to economic theory and social theory as well. The fact of reality he just cannot put aside is: redistribution works, i.e., taking a few thousand dollars from Warren Buffet and buying food for a hungry, single mother and baby solves the problem. From Buffet’s point of view the taking is insignificant and will not be missed, and from the single mom’s point of view the giving is a godsend: it keeps her baby from starving to death. Thus, no amount of economic theorizing will persuade Obama that income redistribution has unintended economic and social consequences that we all might come to regret later on.

To make a long story short, Obama reminds me of Rodney King, the guy who experienced the riots in LA after the OJ Simpson verdict and cried: “Why can’t we all just get along?”

Indeed, why can’t we? Why can’t we all just pony up and help those less fortunate who are in need of housing, food, clothing, a job, an education, health care, retirement income, etc. etc. etc.? Geez, probably 50% of us are willing to help each other out voluntarily! Maybe even 75% of us!

Hell, the answer is obvious! The remaining 50% or 25% who are not willing to help each other out voluntarily WILL help each other out if they are forced to help their neighbors out by a good, just, Christian, well-meaning and provident head-altruist in Washington, D.C. who just happens to be a little smarter and more determined than the rest of us, who has the audacity to hope, the gift of gab and an unshakeable belief in change.

Voila! Rodney King’s cry becomes reality. We all get along... and live happily ever after!

[bobblehead]

Fortunately, most of us get wiser as we grow older. We study economics, human behavior and moral, political and social philosophy. We come to understand that the Marxian prescription (From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.) is a medicine worse than the disease when applied to a society.



Actually less than half of us get wiser, but far less than 100% of us vote. I would guess if 100% of the population were forced to vote redistributionist democrats would win every election.

[bobblehead]

Still waiting for the extremist republicans. :oops:

I'm still waiting for a definition....like what policies make one extreme republican, then I can answer it, I'm sure there are some.

What makes an extreme democrat?

My opinion.....Seeing higher taxes and redistribution as the solution to most problems. Wanting to impose extreme environmental philosophies on society despite the cost to society. Thinking that gov't is more efficient than private industry in any more than a few extreme examples. That is the way I define it. Again, you might think most of that sounds good, and if you define extreme republican I might think it sounds good. We agree to disagree.

[HowardRoark]

I truly wonder what Obama’s deal is. Is he just a myopic kid who has set forth the goal of becoming President; once he gets there he will have no idea what to do.

Or, is he died in the wool Socialist who wants to dramatically change things to that idealism. When I read through his website, it certainly appears as though he is a true Socialist. But, he also changes his views/ideas so quick, I wonder if he even knows what he is….other than power hungry.

I read Obama’s books: Dreams from My Father, and The Audacity of Hope. The first is extremely well-written and offers a very good insight into what makes him tick as a person. The second is an overview of his thoughts and beliefs on major issues. I highly recommend both.

My impression of Obama, for what it’s worth, is that he’s a genuine and sincere altruist. He’s not an ideologue. In fact, he’s more an extreme pragmatist, willing to consider any and all opinions on a particular issue. He is logical and relies on historical experience and his own personal experience to settle his opinion on a particular issue or policy. That his bottom-line opinions generally correspond with leftist ideology is more accidental than purposeful, at least that’s how I believe he sees it. He might say, for instance, that the left’s ideology happens to correspond to his outlook, but it is not the root cause of his outlook.

You know what I mean. We’re all naïve and altruistic when we’re young. We see poverty on the one hand and wealth on the other and say: “Damn, the solution is obvious. Just distribute the wealth more evenly. Take a little from the rich guy and give it to the poor guy!”

Fortunately, most of us get wiser as we grow older. We study economics, human behavior and moral, political and social philosophy. We come to understand that the Marxian prescription (From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.) is a medicine worse than the disease when applied to a society.

The problem is it requires an understanding of economic and social political theory to expose and debunk such social quackery. Unfortunately, Obama’s aversion to political theory and ideology extends to economic theory and social theory as well. The fact of reality he just cannot put aside is: redistribution works, i.e., taking a few thousand dollars from Warren Buffet and buying food for a hungry, single mother and baby solves the problem. From Buffet’s point of view the taking is insignificant and will not be missed, and from the single mom’s point of view the giving is a godsend: it keeps her baby from starving to death. Thus, no amount of economic theorizing will persuade Obama that income redistribution has unintended economic and social consequences that we all might come to regret later on.

To make a long story short, Obama reminds me of Rodney King, the guy who experienced the riots in LA after the OJ Simpson verdict and cried: “Why can’t we all just get along?”

Indeed, why can’t we? Why can’t we all just pony up and help those less fortunate who are in need of housing, food, clothing, a job, an education, health care, retirement income, etc. etc. etc.? Geez, probably 50% of us are willing to help each other out voluntarily! Maybe even 75% of us!

Hell, the answer is obvious! The remaining 50% or 25% who are not willing to help each other out voluntarily WILL help each other out if they are forced to help their neighbors out by a good, just, Christian, well-meaning and provident head-altruist in Washington, D.C. who just happens to be a little smarter and more determined than the rest of us, who has the audacity to hope, the gift of gab and an unshakeable belief in change.

Voila! Rodney King’s cry becomes reality. We all get along... and live happily ever after!

Barack has to realize the math doesn’t work. There are very few Warren Buffets out there, and there will be a hell of a lot fewer if they realize that their wealth will be taken from them and redistributed once it is earned.

There are plenty of young people who look at a rich person and a poor person and use this to motivate them to NEVER be one of the poor people. If all young people look at that equation and decide to wait for the handout, eventually their will be nobody left to do the handing.

When there is resistance, that’s when the fun begins. Big sticks and whatnot come out to force people to get things done. A guy once called this The Road to Serfdom. THAT IS A BOOK BY FRIEDRICH HAYEK…….I DID NOT MAKE UP THE PHRASE; THE ROAD TO SERFDOM, NOR DID I HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE AUTHORING OF THE BOOK.

As a Conservative, I realize and acknowledge that Capitalism is brutal to those on the bottom of the food chain. I just don’t think that redistribution of wealth is the way to deal with this brutalness. Also, I believe that many of the people on the lower ends of food chain are some of the happiest people on earth.

[mraynrand]

I truly wonder what Obama’s deal is. Is he just a myopic kid who has set forth the goal of becoming President; once he gets there he will have no idea what to do.

Or, is he died in the wool Socialist who wants to dramatically change things to that idealism. When I read through his website, it certainly appears as though he is a true Socialist. But, he also changes his views/ideas so quick, I wonder if he even knows what he is….other than power hungry.

I read Obama’s books: Dreams from My Father, and The Audacity of Hope. The first is extremely well-written and offers a very good insight into what makes him tick as a person. The second is an overview of his thoughts and beliefs on major issues. I highly recommend both.

My impression of Obama, for what it’s worth, is that he’s a genuine and sincere altruist. He’s not an ideologue. In fact, he’s more an extreme pragmatist, willing to consider any and all opinions on a particular issue. He is logical and relies on historical experience and his own personal experience to settle his opinion on a particular issue or policy. That his bottom-line opinions generally correspond with leftist ideology is more accidental than purposeful, at least that’s how I believe he sees it. He might say, for instance, that the left’s ideology happens to correspond to his outlook, but it is not the root cause of his outlook.

You know what I mean. We’re all naïve and altruistic when we’re young. We see poverty on the one hand and wealth on the other and say: “Damn, the solution is obvious. Just distribute the wealth more evenly. Take a little from the rich guy and give it to the poor guy!”

Fortunately, most of us get wiser as we grow older. We study economics, human behavior and moral, political and social philosophy. We come to understand that the Marxian prescription (From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.) is a medicine worse than the disease when applied to a society.

The problem is it requires an understanding of economic and social political theory to expose and debunk such social quackery. Unfortunately, Obama’s aversion to political theory and ideology extends to economic theory and social theory as well. The fact of reality he just cannot put aside is: redistribution works, i.e., taking a few thousand dollars from Warren Buffet and buying food for a hungry, single mother and baby solves the problem. From Buffet’s point of view the taking is insignificant and will not be missed, and from the single mom’s point of view the giving is a godsend: it keeps her baby from starving to death. Thus, no amount of economic theorizing will persuade Obama that income redistribution has unintended economic and social consequences that we all might come to regret later on.

To make a long story short, Obama reminds me of Rodney King, the guy who experienced the riots in LA after the OJ Simpson verdict and cried: “Why can’t we all just get along?”

Indeed, why can’t we? Why can’t we all just pony up and help those less fortunate who are in need of housing, food, clothing, a job, an education, health care, retirement income, etc. etc. etc.? Geez, probably 50% of us are willing to help each other out voluntarily! Maybe even 75% of us!

Hell, the answer is obvious! The remaining 50% or 25% who are not willing to help each other out voluntarily WILL help each other out if they are forced to help their neighbors out by a good, just, Christian, well-meaning and provident head-altruist in Washington, D.C. who just happens to be a little smarter and more determined than the rest of us, who has the audacity to hope, the gift of gab and an unshakeable belief in change.

Voila! Rodney King’s cry becomes reality. We all get along... and live happily ever after!

Barack has to realize the math doesn’t work. There are very few Warren Buffets out there, and there will be a hell of a lot fewer if they realize that their wealth will be taken from them and redistributed once it is earned.

There are plenty of young people who look at a rich person and a poor person and use this to motivate them to NEVER be one of the poor people. If all young people look at that equation and decide to wait for the handout, eventually their will be nobody left to do the handing.

When there is resistance, that’s when the fun begins. Big sticks and whatnot come out to force people to get things done. A guy once called this The Road to Serfdom. THAT IS A BOOK BY FRIEDRICH HAYEK…….I DID NOT MAKE UP THE PHRASE; THE ROAD TO SERFDOM, NOR DID I HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE AUTHORING OF THE BOOK.

As a Conservative, I realize and acknowledge that Capitalism is brutal to those on the bottom of the food chain. I just don’t think that redistribution of wealth is the way to deal with this brutalness. Also, I believe that many of the people on the lower ends of food chain are some of the happiest people on earth.

Road to Serfdom - a good book. Try Jonah Goldberg's 'Liberal Fascism' as a follow up

[HowardRoark]

Road to Serfdom - a good book. Try Jonah Goldberg's 'Liberal Fascism' as a follow up

I’m still working my way through Crime and Punishment, but Jonah’s book is definitely on my short list. I have heard from many people that it is an excellent book.

[mraynrand]

Road to Serfdom - a good book. Try Jonah Goldberg's 'Liberal Fascism' as a follow up

I’m still working my way through Crime and Punishment, but Jonah’s book is definitely on my short list. I have heard from many people that it is an excellent book.

Is that your first trip into Dostoyevsky land? If so, and you like C&P, you have to read them all, especially Brothers Karamazov. That's an all-time must read - possibly the greatest novel, perhaps even the greatest piece of literature - ever. The Devils or The Possessed is a very dark novel, but it has the virtue of examining the effects of the teachings of a radical and his revelation after he views his creations; to paraphrase: "What hath I wrought?" Or if you like shorter stuff, read Friend of the Family or my favorite novella "The Double." Ok, that's enough Fyodor for one post. (I can't help myself, I love the stuff).

[Maxie the Taxi]

HowardRoark wrote:


Barack has to realize the math doesn’t work. There are very few Warren Buffets out there, and there will be a hell of a lot fewer if they realize that their wealth will be taken from them and redistributed once it is earned.

There are plenty of young people who look at a rich person and a poor person and use this to motivate them to NEVER be one of the poor people. If all young people look at that equation and decide to wait for the handout, eventually their will be nobody left to do the handing.

When there is resistance, that’s when the fun begins. Big sticks and whatnot come out to force people to get things done. A guy once called this The Road to Serfdom. THAT IS A BOOK BY FRIEDRICH HAYEK…….I DID NOT MAKE UP THE PHRASE; THE ROAD TO SERFDOM, NOR DID I HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE AUTHORING OF THE BOOK.

As a Conservative, I realize and acknowledge that Capitalism is brutal to those on the bottom of the food chain. I just don’t think that redistribution of wealth is the way to deal with this brutalness. Also, I believe that many of the people on the lower ends of food chain are some of the happiest people on earth.

If you keep lowering the threshhold of "richness," the math does work. Eventually you reach the point of equality where there is no significant difference among individual incomes. You eventually reach the point where "rich" and "poor" are the same.

I believe Obama has already lowered the "richness" threshold to something like an annual family income of $250,000 or more per year. This doesn't even factor in other government non-income takings from the "rich," like Social Security, Medicare and other local taxes like real estate taxes.

And nothing says $250,000/year is written in stone. Obama may yet lower that threshold. Consider Sweden where income tax rates approach 100% of income. Yet the Swedes seem to live rather comfortably. And they seem to have eliminated the "brutal" side effects of capitalism as you describe them. So that argument won't work on Obama either.

The liberal attraction to economic egalitarianism is a tough nut to crack. Why? Because most liberals cannot see beneath the surface of things. They see the world in simplistic, linear terms. Wealth exists, so divide it up. It's as simple as that. They give no thought to why wealth exists. The "why" of it is not relevant. And the few who believe it is relevant rely on simplistic, linear theories to explain wealth's existence...like Marxian theory which is about as simplistic as it gets:

Wealth = things workers make. Thus, what makes wealth is workers' labor. Thus, workers who labor deserve to have the product of their labor, i.e., they deserve to be wealthy, or at least as wealthy as everybody else.

It's the same type of reasoning the liberal uses when he demands gun control: "Why gun control? It's obvious, moron! Because guns kill people!"