Comments (Page 22)
|
That said, for Obama to criticize Fox directly was probably foolish. He's the President. Criticism should be dealt with by his staff and when it is not and election year he should be seen to let it roll off his shoulders. Bush never would have elevated MSNBC by directly responding to Keith Olberman the way Obama directly responded to his critics on Fox. Bush was right in that respect.
|
||||
|
Have folks in the opposition always been this paranoid of the other side? I know it goes both ways. Some of my liberal friends were absolutely insane during the Bush era. They thought we were right around the corner from becoming a fascist state. Of course it didn't happen, Obama won, and now it's the righty's turn to go crazy.:)
|
||||
|
No offense to anyone. I'm not saying any specific person here is crazy. But there is a lot unwarranted mistrust and yes, paranoia on the right at this point in time. Just as there was on the left when Bush and Cheney were in. That's how I see it.
|
||||
|
It Can Happen HERE, Authoritarian Peril in the Age Of Bush by Joe Conason
And there are MANY others. How many books like this will be written by right wingers about Obama? LOL. It never ends! Yet somehow, for more than 200 years our system has worked. It's been messy, but it's worked. I predict it will keep working for quite some time. Happy Sunday everyone. |
||||
If those of us who believe in single payer have our way then everyone will one day qualify for the so called 'public option'. If not, then the insurance companies will remain and you can continue to buy insurance. I really think your fears are misplaced. This is about providing more coverage, not less. And for now the Democrats have made their deal with the devil and my side has been forced into compromise. Your precious private insurance is perfectly safe under Obama so stop worrying. They just might have to behave a little more ethically. That's all. |
||||
|
Harry, are you a Republican, a conservative or both? I'm not attempting to mock you in any way I'm just curious (and yes I realize there is often a difference between a conservative and Republican). It's of course obvious that I am a bleeding heart liberal Democrat. LOL.
|
||||
|
Last question Harry and then I'll retire until you folks come back and start responding. What do you think of Texas congressman Ron Paul? Again, I'm just curious. Our mutual friend Progressive has said that you are a conservative that is deserving of a chance, so to speak. Maybe we can have a good conversation.
|
||||
|
Judged: 
1 
1 |
||||
You jump into a conversation, just to cause trouble and bring insults, and are not welcome by the grown-ups here. Obviously you only look for a phrase to use as a pretext for being nasty to someone, not to discuss any issue at all. A major part of our discussion has been about cordiality. Clearly not your style! You are apparently so uninformed about me and my views that you do not realize that I am a feminist, and anti-marriage, as an institution. Why would anyone with your approach assume that your comments here would be welcomed by anyone other than the few other insulting right-wing extremist nut-cases who occasionally intrude here? Harry is not included in the terms extremist, insulting or nut-case. He is what I consider right of center, but he is a civil person, cordial though strong in his views. Topix does not usually attract the civil conservatives, and is more heavily populated by the right-wing extremists - but there are civil persons in the real world - at least in my town - who are right of center. Many who are not dittoheads, even. As for the left- there is a large range of views, and a full spectrum to the left of center, in terms of variety. But the extreme right-of center obviously has many more "true believers", with less divergent views - since so many dittoheads get their marching orders from Beck and Limbaugh and Fox. Unlike the left, which includes so many folks who think for ourselves, and disagree with each other. that we could get a mob together, even if we tried - which we don't - unlike the ultra-right-wing tea-party-ers and disrupters at town hall meetings. A little demonstration here and there, with a bit of civil disobedience, such as the one at Lieberman's office, by only a small group on the left, is the best job that can be done getting up a big group of disruptive people, and that represents only a small faction of the left, and a faction that others of us think is counter-productive. What I want to see is some meetings in Connecticut, to force Dodd to be more responsive to the grass-roots progressives who dislike too much coddling of the big guys in the financial industry - and to begin to search for the best Democrat to run against Lieberman, om 3 years, and even for someone to challenge Dodd if he does not strongly support the sort of regulatory legislation of the big financial institutions that has been coming out of the House Financial Services Committee. I recognize that substative comments are too much for some folks to handle, however. |
||||
The fish thinks you are naive |
||||
|
well, I was so annoyed that I did not edit - and left out the word NOT. Of course I meant that we on the left can NOT, and do not want to, get a mob together, but only a small faction of the further left can get a demonstration for civil disobedience together. I do not think that will be productive in changing Lieberman's views or behavior.
|
||||
the fish thinks you are naive |
||||
I think Harry has very strong libertarian tendencies, and is a conservative variety of libertarian, with more friendliness toward Republicans than toward Democrats in power - because Republicans are more pro-private enterprise, and Democrats more suspicious of big financial interests. to me, he seems very ideological, without having the nasty tactics of the ultra-right wing nut-cases I usually encounter, and attack - so I appreciate the discussion with him. Believe me, you will find a nice real, traditional conservative on topix like you find a needle in a haystack - he is more like the gem in a stack of needles! Most far right-wing types are here just to attack, and cannot even handle a rational discussion of their ideology. Though I disagree with Harry, he at least has read and thought for himself, and is not a dittohead. You may also encounter someone who will call himself either Done That, or Denny Crain (the character from Boston Legal) if he uses his new name, which he has told us about. He too is a libertarian conservative, and cordial much of the time, especially if you make it clear that you wish to be. I don't want to get them in trouble with their fellow right-wingers, who seem very suspicious of anyone on the right who is not full of hatred and venom, and who does not hate liberals, and get hated in return, so I will say that Harry and Done That are usually mistaken in their ideology. I expect to see them called RINO's by the few idiots who intervene in grown-up conversation. |
||||
You should call yourself a shark, not a fish, if you support the predators of the world. It takes a lot of non-predators to fend off the predators. You apparently do not understand nuanced views, or complex analysis, and thus call names. Why don't you go swim with the sharks, and see how you do? I suspect they would welcome you as one of their own. apologies to sharks. |
||||
The fish thinks that you are naive |
||||
I always like to ask libertarian conservatives what they think of Ron Paul too, and also want to know whether they agree with other libertarian views he has, in addition to the economic ones. I hope he answers your questions. I agree with Ron Paul on four important things, and perhaps Harry will tell us if he does too. l: opposing the Supreme corut decision on eminent domain, that lets a city take private property (maybe not even at a fair price) and re-sell it for a private purpose to another private owner, often a developer, in hope of getting more prooperty taxes. I cannot believe that was the intent of the founding Fathers! a libertarian friend of mine in this town and I strongly agreed on this one. 2: opposing too much interventionism, imperialism, and war-mongering by the U. s. abroad - Paul goes further than I do, even, on this one. We need to know what Harry thinks about wht to do in Af-Pak (I also wonder what policy you favor, TP). 3: opposing too much Presidential and executive power (including that of former vP Cheney, and the over-riding of the rights of the legislative branch by high-handed means such as signing statements that say, in essence, "I'll sign the bill, but I won't enforce this part of your law, because I don't agree with it, and I'm the decider." 4: supporting some civil liberties issues - maybe medical marijuana, or states' rights decisions on gay marriage, rather than having a federal government policy on those issues. Of course, I would support the stronger civil liberties position, whether taken by the feds or a state, rather than merely supporting states' rights, which would allow reactionary states to violte civil liberties. If Harry will comment on these things, it would be very interesting to me - maybe to you also, and maybe you too might comment on them. Sometimes there are several similar positions between liberal and conservative libertarians, once we get off the economic ideological stuff. |
||||
|
Harry, come back - we will disagree but still be nice to you. you are so appreciated compared to the nasty types - the really nasty ones, rather than the ones who merely misunderstnd nuances! and overreact. all of us occasionally make that mistake - and learn how to clarify and back down, if we sense the possibility of friendliness and cordiality once we get past the misunderstanding.
|
||||
Some manage to have the same paranoia in reaction to both administrations - the conspiracy theorist types who think that there are concentration camps being built, and who think that both parties are covering up an inside job at 911, etc. And the ones with the worst suspicions about the Bohemian Grove, and Iluminati, and Masons, etc. Some can actually be very nice persons, but read a steady diet of suspicion, and trust no one. There is a centrist view between too much trust and too little. Some are evil and anti-Jewish in an over-generalized sense, and that is racism, in my view. Because I oppose that over-generaliation, I feel free to be very anti-orthodox Jewish clannishness and reactionary views, and anti-Netanyahu. I am a Tzipi Livni fan! as far as I have seen and heard her - especially at Davros as an internationalist, and in the Knesset attacking Netanyahu-orthodox reactionary policies. Will Harry be willing to get off the economic disagreement and discuss foreign policy a bit? Hope so! there are so many different issues, and it is fun to look for agreement sometimes! |
||||
Are you sure it was a deal with the devil - or maybe with several little demons? Here is a case where I probably would agree with you - in favor of single-payer - if I thought it could be enacted, as being the better public policy. But it could not be enacted in this country. The government option sort of gives people a choice - they can be ideological free-market types, or they can be willing to support a government program but also monitor it, and ant more enforcement of provisions against faud against the government (with private enterprize, one worries about its fraud against the policy-holders). I wish there were more people given the choice - looks like it will be just those in the so-called exchange who get the choice of a public option. This is a case where I think reform is so needed that I am for the best bill that can pass, warts and all. Even with some modified version of the Stupak amendment. He is one of the C street house folks, very religious type, in cahoots with the nutty GOP types like Ensign and Sanford and Coburn. |
||||
True, but they went after the New York Times. KO was not a big enough influence to bother to attack. He is more of an entertainer-commedian, with a point of view - Rather than a grim ideologue attempting to use humor, like the right-wing nut-case media types. I agree with your view about Obama staying above the fray, however. I thought Rahm was supposed to do the dirty work - that is why I accepted him without protest, though my idea of a great Presidential chief-of-staff type is more like Leon Panetta, rather than a political henchman. |
||||
|
||||
Judge it!
Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.
Other Recent Health Discussions
Search the Health Forum:
Search the Health Forum:
| Topic | Updated | Last By | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Businesses, Customers Adjust to New Smoking Ban | 3 min | Sheri | 70 |
| Reactions to health bill passage | 4 min | R U Serious | 61 |
| Unlike GOP, Democrats care about seniors | 5 min | Food 4 Thought | 8 |
 Poll:
Should the US have universal healthcare?
(Oct '07)
|
5 min | Clarionator | 65240 |
| Court: Smokers at fault, not bars | The Columbu... | 5 min | JDH29 | 7561 |
| Anchor Babies Weigh Down Economy (Dec '08) | 9 min | dorothy | 1687 |
| Letters: Greed plagues health system | 12 min | Manuel Alvarez | 424 |
Related Topix Forums:
US News,
US Politics,
Democrat,
US Senate,
Massachusetts,
Massachusetts Government,
Health Insurance,
Edward Kennedy
Daily Horoscope for January 4
Pisces
Family, friends and in-laws are all hard to please. It is better to please yourself for once, dear Pisces, than to bang your head against a wall. You need to relax and get in touch with your own feelings. Do not hesitate to speak up for someone you care about. Someone may try to curtail your freedom. Set them straight and do not give in.
|
Reach local customers. Engage a specific demographic. Maximize business-to-business opportunities. Topix can deliver your message.
|
Copyright ©2009 Topix LLC
