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

Thomas_James — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:20:38 -0000

Ok so I started to write my dissertation back, but then I decided that was a waste of time a deleted the page and half I had written. My point can be more easily summed up this way.

I have read some Hobbs and Kant. I didn't agree entirely with what either of them said, and I didn't want to pursue a degree in philosophy. So while I have read and understand their theories, I am not going to waste our time here debating those point.

The only set of progressives that I really take an interest in are the set that founded this Country. I find myself conservative because I believe that their belief in the individual was correct. I believe that Constitutionally limited Republic was brilliant and there is little we can do to improve upon that system. I have read Marx, but I have also read enough Orwell to understand that human nature will always prevent Utopia. That does not mean that I don't believe that people can help each other. It just means that I would rather error on the side of the individual to provide aid over the side of the collective to do the same. A good argument for that fact is the point that Republicans in Congress give far more voluntarily than Democrats do. (Those Republicans were supposed to be the group that subscribed to the notions of limited government and individual rights, but clearly they failed at that and the American people spoke last night) I am a Conservative with a belief in our Constitution, because I believe that our Constitution is what enabled the list of things you named that progressives are responsible for. I do believe that our society benefits more from having a smaller constitutionally limited government because government on a federal level is inherently inefficient. I disagree with your notion that "that history teaches us small groups with wealth tend to keep it, despite their disproportionate use of the public's resources." I think small groups with wealth tend to contribute proportionally more than the use. I don't think you honestly find an example in the last 200 years where that is not true. After all in our current system (forgive the numbers) but the top 25% contribute 80% of tax revenues, I don't think that same top 25% is using 80% of the public's resources, quite the opposite I would actually wager.

But hey Chris lets go ahead make some snide comments about logic and sinew.

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

Thomas_James — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:24:05 -0000

Perhaps..... and there is no such thing as a free lunch!

Actually they mean quite a bit.

On base level it is optimism versus pessimism. A belief that man is good enough as an individual to do what is right versus a belief that only through the collective of government can good be achieved.

Let me put it to you this way, if I were to go and give a dollar to someone how much would that person get, a dollar right. But if I must rely on the govt. to come an take that dollar, pay the bureaucracy and transportation, how much actually shows up with the person that needs it? 20 cents 30 cents maybe. So you tell me what is the rationale behind having a government do the redistributing, putting aside the implications of giving something to somebody that did not earn it, and just focusing on the logistics.

The reason I can see is that you don't think people will give of their own volition, so we must rely on the govt. to take it from them. Right? Isn't that rather pessimistic? It boils down to a belief that individual is in capable of helping another without the government forcing him to do so.

I personally reject that idea. I believe we as individuals as the majority are going to help our fellow man, and I believe logistically that the person in need is better served by getting the whole dollar rather than the 30 cents after the government wastes 70 cents to get it to them.

I suppose, I would have less problem with Robin Hood Socialism if it didn't have to be run through our Federal Govt. which is run by two corrupt political parties. Both parties pander to the notion “A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” Our federal govt. is not constitutionally supposed to to ever pay Paul.

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

Thomas_James — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:27:27 -0000

Chris, I believe we are close to the same ground. I actually believe in a flat tax or the national sales tax. Countries such as Bulgaria and Ireland are surging under the system and the people of those Countries are experiencing long thought impossible prosperity. I imagine that if Mass. gets their income tax repealed they will see a similar boom.

I understand your point of view, though I may not one hundred percent agree, thank you for expressing it in a calm reasonable manner. I unfortunately cannot say the same for Mr. Aragon. He hell bent on linking me to the Bush/McCain-neocons because he disagrees with my thoughts on things.

Benito, guess what I already voted and it wasn't for McCain. I am not a neo-con, sheesh is that all you guys can do is try to make conservative a bad word and link it to Bush. I feel like Darren White. Give it a rest, I am a libertarian that is more fed up with GOP than I am the Dems. At least the Dems have the Blue Dogs.

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

Thomas_James — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:58:07 -0000

No it doesn't I didn't say TAXES=SOCIALISM, I said REDISTRIBUTION=SOCIALISM... Obama supporters are incorrectly trying to color this argument to say that if you are against redistribution your are against taxes. I personally am happy that I live in a democracy where I get to pay taxes to provide for infrastructure, education, security, and for those that absolutely cannot help themselves. I do not believe that we need to take from those who "have more" and give to those who do not "have as much." I don't think we need an expansive, obtrusive, enormous federal government (period.) Our government is bloated and fat and dolling out money that it has no Constitutional right to give away!

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