Disqus - Latest Comments for ChrisDudley

Re: ONLINE PETITION FOR PUBLIC-OPTION IN HEALTH CARE

ChrisDudley — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 02:16:37 -0000

Just like it doesn't work in all those other country's in the civilized world where people live longer, infant mortality is lower, obesity is lower and you can see a doctor without going bankrupt! Don't even think of bringing the American healthcare system up to par with, oh, Romania or anything.

Re: ONLINE PETITION FOR PUBLIC-OPTION IN HEALTH CARE

ChrisDudley — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 02:14:24 -0000

Public Option Now or what's the use in Democrats?

Re: Catholic Church flexes muscles in domestic partnership debate

ChrisDudley — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:52:08 -0000

Has anyone notified the IRS that this non-profit entity is violating its legal charter by participating in political action? I wonder how you do that, formally?

Re: Basking in the good feeling

ChrisDudley — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 02:31:10 -0000

Sorry, but I have to quote you:

"Economy in crisis. Optional war sold on lies, carelessly waged, profitably privatized. Incredible incompetence. Organized corruption. White House vs. the Constitution. What sane citizen wouldn’t vote for change?"

Same stood in three color relief in 2004 and yet they voted, arguably I guess, for Bush.

Kerry ran a centrist campaign and lost. Bill Clinton, in 91, ran on a liberal campaign and won then became a DINO (Democrat in name only).

Obama ran a fairly liberal campaign, with respect to the current media landscape's bias, and won. It would seem that one wins by running a liberal campaign. Let's hope he doesn't lose the war, and I don't mean Iraq. The Republican machine is already firing the first volleys. But, unlike Clinton, Obama seems not the least bit worried. It's probably fair to say there is no Monica in his closet.

An acceptance speech given by a mixed race man wherein he mentions Gay rights? I suppose we can gloat for a few more days.

Re: Sheriff of Nottingham socialism

ChrisDudley — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:14:22 -0000

Whew, we are shortly to have produced a graduate paper.

Certainly, anyone getting a trust fund dinner is also occasionally receiving a free lunch. Unless you count the Gov funded inspector who made sure the meat was safe, the gov regulators who made sure the water was potable, the gov regulators who made sure the roads were safe, All paid for by the taxpayer handing over the lunch sans disease, spoil and bacteria. But I digress.

And that just to answer your first sentence.

Your conservative optimism vs liberal pessimism is the polar opposite of Hobbesian origins of the conservative ethos. Hobbes' estimation of man's innate motivations was quite brutal. He is well considered the father of modern political conservatives. Kant thought that man was innately good and that humanity would slowly march forward, ethically, philosophically, politically. And it, inarguably, has. Kant is largely thought of as the father of modern liberalism.

As to the rest of that paragraph I can only guess at the logical leap you make, pessimism leading to a need for government. I really think you ought to diagram that sentence as its root hangs precariously, without sinew, from its conclusion.

Okay, next, the dollar argument. Your argument seems to be that it is more efficient to hand a dollar to a needy person than to filter that dollar through a government entity? And, you seem to think that without mandate enough people with dollars will hand them over to people who might rightfully need dollars rather than keep that dollar for to pay fees on a second yacht. It would seem that history teaches us small groups with wealth tend to keep it, despite their disproportionate use of the public's resources.

Well, I suddenly realize I need to watch as a black man named Barack Hussein Obama is quite possibly elected president in a country where, before progressives got ahold of it:

Black people were slaves, mostly;
women couldn't vote,
half of all Seniors (before social security) were literally starving,
factories polluted air and water,
miners died like they do now in China (30 a day?),
reading was for those who could afford it or the clergy,
and on and on and on and on....

Re: The state of the election: “Fairly smooth so far” in New Mexico

ChrisDudley — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:21:04 -0000

I took my camera to several polling places, expecting lively battles, and, well, nothing. Lots of video of buildings without lines of people, nattering lawyers, blabbering nazi's or even do good hippies handing out homemade muffins. Pretty boring. Went home to watch on tv.

Re: Sheriff of Nottingham socialism

ChrisDudley — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:37:55 -0000

Ireland, btw, is tanking. I'm not up on Bulgaria.

Re: Sheriff of Nottingham socialism

ChrisDudley — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:36:13 -0000

Perhaps I've overstated my own case.

Re: Sheriff of Nottingham socialism

ChrisDudley — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:34:40 -0000

Sounds like Boetcker would have stood strong against the Magna Carta. Poor King John, having to share some of his spoils with the landed gentry, for you "cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich."

Your post reads like the bumper stickers of local Republican diplomacy. "There's no Free Lunch!!"

Honestly, do you pretend to pass off all of these straw men as levelers of considerate charges? Does one of these trite, emotionally bereft, pubescent charges actually mean anything when examined?

Re: Excluding Carol Miller

ChrisDudley — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:26:00 -0000

Viability seems, at first, a rational bar for any third party candidate. But who decides viability, right? If she pulled 17 percent in the mid 90s then she might be considered viable by some independent arguments.

As long as media organizations are allowed to use the public commons, the airwaves, the cables, the roads, essentially free of charge they will do as they please. The question in this is who owns the medium, the corporation, whose interest is money, or Americans, whose interest should be a full vetting of all ideas and candidates.

KOB-TV is just doing what any financially interested party would do, toss out the one most likely not to win so as to curry favor with the eventual winner, whichever of the other two that is.

Instant runoff helps. Unfortunately, until elections are fully funded by taxpayers and the press is forced to give free, and reasonably long, slots to candidates we will have corporate money decisions ruling our public discourse.

Re: Sheriff of Nottingham socialism

ChrisDudley — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:06:40 -0000

I agree that our taxes in some areas are being poorly spent, that there are extraneous chunks of government that needs be cut.

However, the equation Redistribution=socialism, clearly and by definition means either advocacy for anarchy with no taxes (or an all volunteer government) or a hard number tax per individual.

If, as you seem to argue, you give no count to what each individual makes when considering his tax, then each will have to pay exactly the same amount.

We can either issue that particularly draconian yet equal tax system or suffer some kind of progressive tax system, which is also, by definition, redistribution (taking more from the wealthy, by percentage, than the poor). So, we are already and have been for many, many years living under, by your argument, socialism.

Your admonition about the constitutionality of government give-aways is a whole other argument in which I suspect we would find common ground.

Re: Sheriff of Nottingham socialism

ChrisDudley — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:56:46 -0000

So no taxes at all? Your equation leaves room only for anarchy or a literal flat tax, all owe exactly the same amount (not percent, amount), including children.

Re: Sheriff of Nottingham socialism

ChrisDudley — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:50:51 -0000

A: You really need to limit comments to 500 or so words. It appears that one can cut and paste any perseveration one pleases, however logically or gramatically challenged. Witness dan9el's screed.

B: Please read my blog occasionally, I read yours! http://bullhornjournal.com

Re: Sheriff of Nottingham socialism

ChrisDudley — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:50:25 -0000

Well put!

I vacillate between anger engendered by the accusations of this ilk and a more serene empathy for the life of fear Ms. Stiman and her cohort live, day after day. Imagine actually, actually believing these absurd chimeric nightmares. Every day would be rather untenable.

You might enjoy a short discussion I'm having with a poster on my youtube posting. It's all the Jew's fault, apparently...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M37hHssjwno