Moderator: Community Team
Incredibly, nearly all the most senior advisors to the nationās first black president ā whose appeal to minorities and women won him reelection ā are white males. Democrats made much during the campaign of an alleged GOP āwar on women.ā But Obamaās own battalions include relatively few of the distaff variety.
Of what are arguably the ten top most important White House advisers, only one ā Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett ā is a woman. Jarrett is also African American.
But the other nine are each white men: Vice President Joe Biden; Senior Advisor David Plouffe; Chief of Staff Jack Lew; National Security Advisor Tom Donilon; Counselor to the President Pete Rouse; National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling; Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer; Acting OMB Director Jeffrey Zients; and Press Secretary Jay Carney.
InkL0sed wrote:I don't understand why you call him Republican. I understand you think he's a moderate conservative (and I have no problem with that because that's a relative term), but not a Republican. He advocates policies which the Republicans vigorously oppose. He leads the Democratic Party. That pretty much makes him objectively a Democrat.
thegreekdog wrote:InkL0sed wrote:I don't understand why you call him Republican. I understand you think he's a moderate conservative (and I have no problem with that because that's a relative term), but not a Republican. He advocates policies which the Republicans vigorously oppose. He leads the Democratic Party. That pretty much makes him objectively a Democrat.
I call him a Republican for two reasons. First, he is a moderate conservative in the vein of the 1990s Republican party (i.e. pre-Bush, pre-Tea Party). Second, the Republicans oppose most of his policies merely because they are his policies and not because those policies are antithetical to Republican ideals.
comic boy wrote:thegreekdog wrote:InkL0sed wrote:I don't understand why you call him Republican. I understand you think he's a moderate conservative (and I have no problem with that because that's a relative term), but not a Republican. He advocates policies which the Republicans vigorously oppose. He leads the Democratic Party. That pretty much makes him objectively a Democrat.
I call him a Republican for two reasons. First, he is a moderate conservative in the vein of the 1990s Republican party (i.e. pre-Bush, pre-Tea Party). Second, the Republicans oppose most of his policies merely because they are his policies and not because those policies are antithetical to Republican ideals.
Given that the current Republican party appears to be veering further right would it not be more accurate to describe Obama as an old school Republican.
thegreekdog wrote:InkL0sed wrote:I don't understand why you call him Republican. I understand you think he's a moderate conservative (and I have no problem with that because that's a relative term), but not a Republican. He advocates policies which the Republicans vigorously oppose. He leads the Democratic Party. That pretty much makes him objectively a Democrat.
I call him a Republican for two reasons. First, he is a moderate conservative in the vein of the 1990s Republican party (i.e. pre-Bush, pre-Tea Party). Second, the Republicans oppose most of his policies merely because they are his policies and not because those policies are antithetical to Republican ideals.
InkL0sed wrote:thegreekdog wrote:InkL0sed wrote:I don't understand why you call him Republican. I understand you think he's a moderate conservative (and I have no problem with that because that's a relative term), but not a Republican. He advocates policies which the Republicans vigorously oppose. He leads the Democratic Party. That pretty much makes him objectively a Democrat.
I call him a Republican for two reasons. First, he is a moderate conservative in the vein of the 1990s Republican party (i.e. pre-Bush, pre-Tea Party). Second, the Republicans oppose most of his policies merely because they are his policies and not because those policies are antithetical to Republican ideals.
Republicans are still Republicans, and Democrats are still Democrats. You're just using terms differently to make a point. So it's not actually interesting for you to say he's a Republican. What you mean is he is conservative.
thegreekdog wrote:InkL0sed wrote:thegreekdog wrote:InkL0sed wrote:I don't understand why you call him Republican. I understand you think he's a moderate conservative (and I have no problem with that because that's a relative term), but not a Republican. He advocates policies which the Republicans vigorously oppose. He leads the Democratic Party. That pretty much makes him objectively a Democrat.
I call him a Republican for two reasons. First, he is a moderate conservative in the vein of the 1990s Republican party (i.e. pre-Bush, pre-Tea Party). Second, the Republicans oppose most of his policies merely because they are his policies and not because those policies are antithetical to Republican ideals.
Republicans are still Republicans, and Democrats are still Democrats. You're just using terms differently to make a point. So it's not actually interesting for you to say he's a Republican. What you mean is he is conservative.
Okay. I'll refer to him as a conservative instead of a Republican. That's a fair criticisim.
Johnny Rockets wrote:thegreekdog wrote:InkL0sed wrote:thegreekdog wrote:InkL0sed wrote:I don't understand why you call him Republican. I understand you think he's a moderate conservative (and I have no problem with that because that's a relative term), but not a Republican. He advocates policies which the Republicans vigorously oppose. He leads the Democratic Party. That pretty much makes him objectively a Democrat.
I call him a Republican for two reasons. First, he is a moderate conservative in the vein of the 1990s Republican party (i.e. pre-Bush, pre-Tea Party). Second, the Republicans oppose most of his policies merely because they are his policies and not because those policies are antithetical to Republican ideals.
Republicans are still Republicans, and Democrats are still Democrats. You're just using terms differently to make a point. So it's not actually interesting for you to say he's a Republican. What you mean is he is conservative.
Okay. I'll refer to him as a conservative instead of a Republican. That's a fair criticisim.
I don't comprehend why you guys need to label your politicians categorically. The issues, and effective solutions are never black and white, so detesting a policy because it's conservative, or too Liberal should come way past the consideration of if it is effective or not.
The refusal to work together, (Both parties) and the climate of political xenophobia over policy implementation is why you guys are fucked solid.
Time to work in the Now.
JRock
TGD wrote:You've bought into the idea that there is a substantial difference between the two parties when there isn't.
metsfanmax wrote:Barack Obama and Mitt Romney do have substantially cosmetically different ideas about the country and how to run it.
Metsfanmax wrote:TGD wrote:You've bought into the idea that there is a substantial difference between the two parties when there isn't.
Why should anyone care whether there is a difference between the two parties? Political decisions are made by individuals, not by political parties, and blaming anything on the political party structure absolves congresspeople from responsibility for their actions. And there are real differences between individuals. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney do have substantially different ideas about the country and how to run it. The fact that it is not a socialist running against a libertarian does not make the differences any less stark.
thegreekdog wrote:What I mind is that those are the only two real choices and that choice isn't as stark as it needs to be. It's like wanting to choose a place to eat and having only two choices: Burger King and McDonald's. Is there a difference? Sure. But it's not a big one.
AndyDufresne wrote:TGD, I tried writing you in for President when I voted in the fall (your Vice was Metsfanmax) on one of my supplementary voter fraud ballots, but I don't think you both won.
--Andy
Metsfanmax wrote:The American public is fairly centrist in its views. Having someone who ran starkly to the left or right wouldn't particularly represent the population as a whole, so unless there is a mood shift in the voting population, the choices we have won't change, and they won't differ by much. If the dispersion from the center were larger, we could expect to see more radical candidates, but the lack of choice is our fault, not the political parties' fault.
Metsfanmax wrote:saxi: the major difference between the two parties exists on non-economic issues. I cannot support the anti-science party.
saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:saxi: the major difference between the two parties exists on non-economic issues. I cannot support the anti-science party.
If enacting a 20% increase in funds for the NIH's Center for Complementary Medicine - putting their monies to an historic high of $140,000,000 over the objections of virtually every medical school dean in America (the widely ridiculed program of the NIH that gives research grants for pseudoscience like energy healing, bee sting healing, "spirit medicine" and homeopathy) makes the Democrats the party of science, then please count me as part of the anti-science crowd.
saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:saxi: the major difference between the two parties exists on non-economic issues. I cannot support the anti-science party.
If enacting a 20% increase in funds for the NIH's Center for Complementary Medicine - putting their monies to an historic high of $140,000,000 over the objections of virtually every medical school dean in America (the widely ridiculed program of the NIH that gives research grants for pseudoscience like energy healing, bee sting healing, "spirit medicine" and homeopathy) makes the Democrats the party of science, then please count me as part of the anti-science crowd.
Some time ago, ol' Saxi briefly worked as the ship's doctor on a tramp freighter plying the route between Mozambique and Sri Lanka. I got sea sick easily so spent most of the voyage drunk on charcoal-filtered vodka. In one port I stumbled off and got a tattoo, bought 4 hookah pipes and spent $500 on an amputee hooker. Don't mistake Saxi's penchant for spending like a drunken sailor as passionate advocacy for the tattoo, hookah and amputee sex-worker industries.
Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:saxi: the major difference between the two parties exists on non-economic issues. I cannot support the anti-science party.
If enacting a 20% increase in funds for the NIH's Center for Complementary Medicine - putting their monies to an historic high of $140,000,000 over the objections of virtually every medical school dean in America (the widely ridiculed program of the NIH that gives research grants for pseudoscience like energy healing, bee sting healing, "spirit medicine" and homeopathy) makes the Democrats the party of science, then please count me as part of the anti-science crowd.
Some time ago, ol' Saxi briefly worked as the ship's doctor on a tramp freighter plying the route between Mozambique and Sri Lanka. I got sea sick easily so spent most of the voyage drunk on charcoal-filtered vodka. In one port I stumbled off and got a tattoo, bought 4 hookah pipes and spent $500 on an amputee hooker. Don't mistake Saxi's penchant for spending like a drunken sailor as passionate advocacy for the tattoo, hookah and amputee sex-worker industries.
I'm not defending the Democrats as the party of science. I'm calling the Republicans the anti-science party. The Democrats don't do nearly as poorly in responding to objective scientific issues, probably mostly because of how their base feels and not necessarily because of how the congresspeople themselves feel. Nevertheless, the reason is irrelevant to my conclusion that it's a lot easier to support Democrats on scientific and social issues.
saxitoxin wrote:By not only funding - but increasing funding - for the NIH CCAM, the Democrats are helping Americans make uninformed and, in many cases, dangerous choices regarding healthcare based on federally funded propagation of pseudoscientific witchcraft.
The fact that the Democrats are willing to spend on absolutely everything under the sun - and occasionally a dollar or two drops into NASA or whatever your favorite pet project is - does not mean they are responsive to "objective scientific issues." The cause of science is set backwards by $10 for every $1 of funding that gets allocated on studies into Pranic Healing because the leader of the Pranic cult gave $100,000 to the chair of the Senate Labor & Health Committee.
Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:By not only funding - but increasing funding - for the NIH CACM, the Democrats are helping Americans make uninformed and, in many cases, dangerous choices regarding healthcare based on federally funded propagation of pseudoscientific witchcraft.
The fact that the Democrats are willing to spend on absolutely everything under the sun - and occasionally a dollar or two drops into NASA or whatever your favorite pet project is - does not mean they are responsive to "objective scientific issues." The cause of science is set backwards by $10 for every $1 of funding that gets allocated on studies into Pranic Healing because the leader of the Pranic cult gave $100,000 to the chair of the Senate Labor & Health Committee.
The amount of funding going the Center for Complementary Medicine is a drop in the bucket compared to the total NIH funding ($30,860,000,000). The budget of NASA is of the same order of magnitude (just under $20 billion). Get your figures straight.
saxitoxin wrote:Agree 110% with what TGD just said.
Besides, I still fail to understand why parties working together is a desirable thing. If Chevron and Exxon worked together to set gas prices or a defense attorney and prosecutor worked together in court people would end up in prison. The term for all members of parliament working in unison to pass the same bills is "one party state." And, besides, there are plenty of examples of bills passed with cooperation of both parties: the Patriot Act, FISA, NDAA, etc. Democracy should be based on vigorous competition, not vigorous cooperation.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users