What Exactly Is the Source of Conservatives' Fear of Obama?

[AniThyng]

Yes. There are still more than a billion of them, are there not? If they want to live like us there is a certain amount of pollution that is associated with that lifestyle, and even if they only produce half the waste that we do it will still be a massive environmental catastrophe.

So it has to be done in turns, for lack of a better way to put it. If the rest of the world wants to live like us, then they'll have to wait while we clean up the mess we made getting there. Hopefully they'll have learned from our mistakes.

You do realize though that while we are at it, Western-owned MNCs salivate at the Chinese market and aggressively promote the western lifestyle - Hollywood does more then merely entertain, it influences, and for every starry eyed chinese kid who decides he wants to be a Greenpeace activist or a pro-democracy campaigner are dozens more who want to eat steak, listen to music on iPods and drive a Beemer. Of course, it cuts both ways, and I think you'll find not everyone in the Chinese government really wants to let western culture in this way, but what are they supposed to do? Shoot the middle class? They get enough flak for the oppression they do as it is.

[Darth Wong]

Yes. There are still more than a billion of them, are there not? If they want to live like us there is a certain amount of pollution that is associated with that lifestyle, and even if they only produce half the waste that we do it will still be a massive environmental catastrophe.

So it has to be done in turns, for lack of a better way to put it. If the rest of the world wants to live like us, then they'll have to wait while we clean up the mess we made getting there. Hopefully they'll have learned from our mistakes.

All the more reason for us to aggressively cut our emissions, because in the process of doing so, we'll be able to develop technologies and techniques that will help the Chinese cut their own emissions. We led the way here, we need to lead the way somewhere better.

[Axis Kast]

Wait a minute, Patrick challenges you to explain why it's impossible to hold a mindset associated with a faith even if you aren't a member of that faith, and you simply repeat that it's impossible? That's not how it works. You've stated this as a fact, it's been challenged. Now you have to explain why a mindset which is associated with a particular faith cannot possibly be found in any non-member of that faith.

For example, the dichotomy between good and evil is a very Judeo-Christian worldview, since Judeo-Christianity is based on the dichotomy between God and Satan. However, that doesn't mean a non-Christian can't also subscribe to that Judeo-Christian good/evil black/white worldview .

You are saying that "he subscribes to a Calvinist worldview" is completely synonymous with "he's a Calvinist". This seems absurd to me; they do not seem like identical statements at all.

I am saying that Kristol's statement to Stewart in no way suggests religious association. On the face of it, a number of interpretations may apply. Proving that the Puritans and their liturgical descendants talk a great deal about issues of merit does not validate the position that Kristol must have developed his positions as a spin-off from that outlook.

[Ryan Thunder]

All the more reason for us to aggressively cut our emissions, because in the process of doing so, we'll be able to develop technologies and techniques that will help the Chinese cut their own emissions. We led the way here, we need to lead the way somewhere better.

Just to be crystal clear; I don't disagree with you on this in the slightest.

[Patrick Degan]

Republicans do not oppose change; they oppose change which they believe is unwise. Your caricature of the Republican Party is so flawed as to be ludicrous. You have completely abstracted these people from an actual political agenda.

Because... you say so? Republicans have exactly been opposed to any change which threatens the preferred status-quo of corporate and plutocratic power and privilege. This has been demonstrated most pointedly just this summer when Chuck Grassley essentially stabbed that poor tool Max Baucus in the back when he outright said that he and his fellow Republicans were going to vote NO to ANY healthcare reform measure, no matter what compromise Baucus tried to come up with.

"Many" is a quantifiable term... how, exactly? And American conservatism has hardly been isolationist.

Oh? As I recall, Bill Clinton didn't feel that way at all during the Wars of Yugoslavian Succession. Later, George W. Bush was the "inward-looking" candidate when matched with Al Gore, on retreat from Clintonian interventionism.

You offer up rhetoric, I point to deeds —specifically, Iraq and of course Project For A New American Century, which outlined the plan for unending American global hegemony. Isolationst my ass: the only reason conservatives opposed Bill Clinton's interventions was because it didn't fit in with their own vision for the future, in addition to it simply being a Clinton initiative which was enough reason as far as they were concerned to oppose it; not because they wanted to retreat back into Fortress America and nail the doors and windows shut.

A strawman is a strawman is a strawman, no matter how many times you keep trying to put it up. I thought we hashed through this particular invalid approach to argument years ago. It seems you have learned nothing since the last time you were regularly getting your ass kicked in on these boards and are determined to make the same mistakes again.

We've hashed out nothing; you're simply comfortable with looking into men's hearts and claiming to know their innermost thoughts. You violate an essential rule of thumb in political analysis, pointed up by Graham Allison in his, "Three Images of the Cuban Missile Crisis:" you examine the outcome and then insist that this was what was intended.

So, you think that by repeating the same stupid strawman fallacy with different wordage, you will make it a valid rebuttal to anything?

The intent of the Republican Party in opposing universal health care is not to kill the "unwashed" masses of proletariat;

Which is an argument I never made and is therefore yet another stupid strawman of your invention. You will never tire of putting these up, will you?

it is to hold the line against what they regard as reckless spending that could only result in a decline in the standards of living for everyone involved. Intent can be abstracted from outcomes; also from facts.

Funny how their disdain for "reckless" spending is always aimed at programmes which on any objective analysis will actually raise standards of living overall —and always on the same unexamined premises. The practical effect, however, is to end up putting the screws tighter on the middle and working classes while wealth continues to be transferred upward. Which is more than mere coincidence.

Here's an experiment for you to test this proposition: try pursuing your interests to the degree of success you'd like to attain in a place like Somalia and see how far you actually manage to get.

Here's an experiment for you: prove that without universal healthcare, America will collapse and I will no longer be able to enjoy my current standard of living. I'd also like to see the dollar amount that you, Deegan, contribute to my welfare each day simply by existing.

Which is not quite the point of my argument in the above quote (which was actually about the support you derive from a stable, functional society). But, as to how America will be negatively impacted without major healthcare reform:


From the Congressional Budget Office's projections of the growth of healthcare spending as percentage of GDP long-term absent any reform in current law of service structure.

And:

Consumption of Health Care and of Other Goods and Services
Historically, economic growth has been driven primarily by improved productivity. As the average worker is able to produce more, the average citizen can consume more. As the population ages and a smaller portion is employed, per capita GDP is likely to grow more slowly, but, on average, future generations will be substantially richer than Americans are today. In 2007, total per capita consumption averages about $27,000, of which about $6,000 is for health care. Under CBO’s projections, by 2035, per capita consumption would grow by over $15,000 (in 2007 dollars), but more than three-quarters of that extra money would be spent on health care. While the consumption of other goods and services would grow by just 12 percent, the consumption of health care would triple.
In addition, although the consumption of goods and services besides health care would, on average, be stable at the end of the projection period, the effect would vary for different individuals. Lower-income people tend to spend fewer dollars on health care than average, but that spending represents a larger portion of their earnings than it does for others. Also, people generally have less flexibility about their spending on health care than on other things. For example, even in companies that offer multiple options for health insurance, premiums do not vary substantially. As a result, as costs for health care increased, higher-income people would generally still be able to increase their consumption of other goods and services, whereas poorer people would probably see their consumption of those items decline.24

From the National Centre For Policy Anaysis 2006 study of projected increases in healthcare spending as %GDP amongst the ten Western industrial democracies.

And as the Brookings Institute outlines the problem:

Not Just a Federal Budget Problem
The federal budget dilemma dramatically illustrates the far more fundamental fact that Americans devote a high proportion of their total spending to health care and that the proportion is growing. That spending now totals more than 16 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), up from only 7 percent in 1970. The President’s Council of Economic Advisors projects that under current trends health spending will exceed 20 percent of all American spending by 2015 (figure 1-2). In other words, if health care spending rises at historical rates, it will grow as a share of everyone’s budgets—public and private. That is not necessarily a bad thing. The medical professions are more and more effective in curing disease and extending life, and Americans may well feel that health care is an increasingly desirable expenditure. But the rising share of income devoted to health will force families and businesses, as well as governments, to make difficult choices between health care and other priorities, such as education, housing, and environmental protection.

What's being talked about here, Axi, is what is amounting to an increasingly negative drag on the overall U.S. economy if nothing is done to reform the system in a substantive and not merely palliative way which is what the GOP "plan" amounts to. Is that something you might be able to wrap your tiny mind around or shall we have to use simple words for your benefit to illustrate the problem?

And as for how I contribute to your existence? My FICA taxes help to finance the Social Security and Medicare you'll eventually draw from, my other tax payments help to finance the FDIC which insures your bank account, helps to fund the military which protects the country you live in, helps fund Federal education loan programmes and Pell Grant programmes, and contributes to the infrastructure spending your state is able to carry out because of Federal revenue-sharing. So I do indeed make my small contribution to your comfortable existence, you smarmy little asshole, as do millions of other taxpayers.

No I haven't, actually. It is you, rather, who seems to be arguing that a society can continue to be viable all by itself simply because... well, you don't even bother to try to explain your alternative vision at all, do you? Just what is so difficult to comprehend about the proposition that a society does indeed depend upon the support of it's population to maintain itself and by tangible means such as taxation to finance necessary functions and services? How do the police get paid for? Or the fire department? Or the schools? Or sewer construction and maintenace? What pays for paving the roads? What funds public health services? Or garbage collection? Or any of several dozen other mechanisms and services which a functional society actually needs to remain functional? How does it all happen, Axi? Magick?

I support national healthcare; I justify it by arguing that the net benefit to society will far exceed the sacrifices made on an individual basis. However, I do not claim that everybody "owes" everybody else the fundamental "right" of healthcare. I fear that we've begun to descend down a slippery slope. Tomorrow, you will shout passionately that we all have a right to wireless Internet access; then, the next day, to mobile telephones, and, finally, to personal computers.

As always, I am not responsible for your fantasies.

Why is healthcare as necessary as police, fire, or educational services? When my friends elect to buy Nintendo DS games before going to the doctor, does that mean that I am financing their video games when I pay higher taxes? Unless you're asking, "Why anything?" the fact that I pay for some public goods does not (A) make healthcare a public good; (B) make a case for making healthcare a compulsory expense for every person.

Because, as a public utility, a national health service acts as a guaranteed universal access to a service without which a person will die —health care. By contrast, you won't die if you don't have wireless internet.

The difference is that I do not appeal to the Invisible Cloud-Being as a source of authority but an observable mechanism which is quite readily testable and open for examination. Your questions have been repeatedly answered and you just keep repeating yourself as if nothing had been said in the first place.

But for which you can provide only assertions that I "owe" you and others for my success in life. If I disagree, you honestly tell me that the alternative to paying for universal healthcare is anarchy.

And here's your latest strawman in this increasingly silly exchange. Yes, you are indeed falling back onto bad habits. Unsurprising.

Because the tax deductions for doing so, of course, have no influence whatsoever upon that decision, I suppose? Or the demands of church-membership? Take those away and what incentive is there to continue charitable giving even to the extent that now exists?

Christians pay tithes because they believe it is necessary to contribute to the Community of Christ, as well as those less fortunate. I find it strange that you could look deep down into their souls and find some hope for personal gain when people part with as much as ten percent of their paycheck annually. Unless the tax deductions help them recover more than the cost of the tithe, they are obviously interested in contributing to charity.

This has nothing to do with "looking into peoples' souls".

You clearly hate people who disagree with you quite a lot. I imagine you have issues. Many of them.

Appeal to Motive Fallacy yet again. Interesting also as this is now the fourth or fifth thread you've pulled this little armchair psychologist bullshit of yours to simply dismiss an opponent's argument in toto. I suppose we'll have to play this little game of yours right to the bitter end.

The problem is that this debate keeps being had and evidence continues to be put up which destroys the proposition and conservatives will turn right around and continue arguing "government is inefficient" as if nothing had ever been said. This is simply taken as a priori.

I don't find that.

A clue, Axi: arguments are not rebutted simply because you, personally, disbelieve in them.

It is selective and it is insufficient just from examining the numbers as well as the scope of action for private organisations v. government agencies.

The article indicates that most charity work is performed locally. It then speculates, without evidence, that donors would be "averse" to spending money for social improvement elsewhere, which is untested.

I also find it interesting that this monograph makes equivocation between charity and "government entitlements." More on that in just a moment.

I don't suppose it would be too much to ask for you to actually provide evidence which backs your little "rebuttal", now would it?

To underscore this point, New Orleans was the subject of outside charitable assistance in the weeks and months following the Katrina disaster and private organisations and initiatives continue to operate to do what they can with the resources they've got at their command. The sad fact is that these efforts are nowhere near able to cope with the task of rebuilding a city after a major flood and New Orleans would be in far worse shape than it is even now were it not for the amount of Federal aid it has already received.

I don't deny that the government can often be more efficient.

However, back to entitlement. The consequences of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita offer valuable insight into the pernicious outcomes of a culture that regards government as the rightful source of action when disaster strikes.

The idea that somebody will ultimately come for you is a source of enormous trouble during disaster. The vast majority of Americans indicate that they would refuse to comply with orders given by most public officials regarding evacuation if they perceived that the circumstances did not warrant it; a similarly vast number have absolutely no understanding of what preparedness is, eschew family drills, and believe that help will be only hours away during even the worst catastrophes. Government has, in effect, become God, and as we saw in New Orleans, people are prepared to mete out anger and resentment toward government when their unrealistic expectations are not met.

No, Axi, government has not "become God". To start with: for your information, 98% of the population of the New Orleans metropolitan area did comply with the evacuation orders and left. The remainder who were caught in the city were those who had no personal transportation and actually could not leave, or those who were still in hospital and could not be moved, or family members or friends who had to help look after these people and couldn't leave them on their own. Most of the people in New Orleans did have an evacuation plan —which is regularly urged on the residents to have each and every week of the hurricane season— and did get out. So we can just dispense with your little steaming pile of ignorance on this score right here because it's clear you don't know dick about what was actually going on in the metro area in the last two days before the storm.

And guess what? It actually is the responsibility of the government to provide disaster rescue and relief when those things called "disasters" actually occur. That is not an "unreasonable expectation". That is not government assuming the role of God but fulfilling its role as guardian of public safety as it is mandated to by law.

The state government certainly dropped the ball with respect to preparedness for Hurricane Katrina. The national government should have built up the levees years before. But what about some personal responsibility? Evacuation plans? Fuck, avoidance of flood zones? Furthermore, why should we rebuild a city that is clearly only "asking for it," geographically? If I'm going to pay out to help you -- which I don't mind in the first instance -- why shouldn't I also be able to stipulate, "You've got to use this to live somewhere reasonably safe?" Disasters happen; New Orleans put itself on a platter.

So has Los Angeles. So has San Francisco. So has Miami. So has Houston. So has Galveston. So has Brownsville. So has Charleston. So has Mobile. So has Boston and New York. So has every city which has located where civilisation usually congregates, which isn't always the "perfectly safe" location. But it isn't practicable, however, to simply relocate a major metropolis as if it were just Buttfuck Township, population 200 or so, in the middle of Podunk County. Especially not one which is the fifth largest major seaport in the United States, which has major riverine, coastal, overland and air transportation routes converging in a central hub, occupies part of the relatively short stretch of the Mississippi River that is able to accommodate deep-draft oceangoing ships, and also serves as a major supply and support point for the Gulf oil and fishing industries because of its proximity to those assets.

A predictable evasion.

You've been talking about personal experience no less than I have.

In which parallel universe? Certainly not in the real world-version of this thread.

How exactly does it follow logically that a Calvinist worldview can only be espoused or held by a religious Calvinist? You're drifting into No True Scottsman territory.

Because unless they are Calvinist, it isn't a Calvinist worldview; it's just a worldview. You haven't even proven that Kristol was really interested in making distinctions between who was, or was not, "worth" the cost of care. I've challenged you to substantiate that he wasn't just looking for a quick way out when confronted with the fact that the government does do some kinds of care reasonably well.

No, you have and continue to evade the question, and Mike's challenged you to answer it as well and I will repeat: How does it follow logically that a Calvinist worldview can only be held by a practising religious Calvinist?

I am saying that Kristol's statement to Stewart in no way suggests religious association. On the face of it, a number of interpretations may apply. Proving that the Puritans and their liturgical descendants talk a great deal about issues of merit does not validate the position that Kristol must have developed his positions as a spin-off from that outlook.

The question is not whether religious association is suggested, Axi. It's whether or not Kristol's viewpoints are operationally the same as a Calvinist framework, especially if it also is the framework which underlies the conservative worldview whether expressed in religious or secular terminology.

[Count Chocula]

Of course it's redistribution. News flash: governments do that. Nobody complains about wealth redistribution when we systematically take everyones' money and give it to farmers, in the form of massive farm subsidies and trade protections. Hell, nobody even notices, despite the fact that it's all on public record and no attempt is made to hide it. The same is true of the military-industrial complex, which is quite often transparently engineered as a form of wealth redistribution. Military projects get approved on the basis of who gets the funds, not whether they actually make sense for the nation.

Conservatives need to pull their heads out of the sand and accept that governments do in fact move wealth around by their very nature, and that the question is how just this process is, rather than pretending it never happens at all except when a Democrat openly admits to it.

Obama's comment to Joe the plumber seems to be predicated on an opinion that some Americans make too much money, more a statement of opinion than a basis for policy. And why $250,000? Why not $200,000? or $500,000? Obama himself didn't qualify the $250,000 statement. As for farm subsidies, I suppose an argument could be made that the production of necessary crops is an item of vital national interest tha justifies exemptions from the taxes that all other citizens must pay; I, however, disagree. I see no justice or equity in tax breaks for farmers that are paid to grow nothing, or are given reduced taxes if their corn goes to ethanol and not pig food, much as I see no reason for tax breaks for oil exploration companies that get incentives to depreciate their drilling equipment on more favorable terms than other fixed assets, or even (although I'm paying the bank for my house) a tax break for household mortgage interest.

You failed to add, by the way, that the apportionment of defense department funds for various projects is tremendously influenced by the interests of the Congressmen who approve the allocations. The B-1 is a good example: North American Rockwell had subcontracts for this bomber in 48 of our 50 states. In other words, influence peddling to bribe convince Congressmen that their districts will win with the influx of new jobs/votes. I agree that military procurement in the US is rife with preferential treatment. That does not make it right, and I'm not arguing that it does. BUT defense expenditures are, at least nominally, accepted as part of the federal government's mandate.

I'm not denying that redistribution occurs; the graduated income tax illustrates that it happens. When it comes to national defense and the other powers the Federal government is authorized to have, such as oversight of interstate commerce and the setting of weights and measures, you'll see little argument. It's the manner of Obama's/Congress' redistribution and Constitutional validity of it, particularly with regard to health care and proposed cap & trade legislation that's raising my eyebrows. And if any version of the Senate bill that requires all adults to have health care insurance becomes reality, you can say goodbye to half of Obama's under-30 supporters. In my opinion.

News flash: whenever government does anything new, it costs somebody money. People don't complain when they think it's justified (this is why conservatives said nothing about the $2 trillion Iraq fiasco). This is just an underhanded way of saying that the environment is a stupid cause and should be ignored. A little more honesty from conservatives would be nice.

I'm saying that the benefits, particularly the benefits to the United States, don't seem to exist. Again, why should we impair our economic output when the net overall result is inconsequential?

Are you really this stupid? An expansion of Medicaid would be exactly the same thing as a federal takeover of health care. As for "limiting th eunmber of health insurance carriers", the large number of health insurers is part of the reason the US has 3 times the administrative overhead costs of Canada. You do understand why companies sack half their combined administrative staff after a merger, right?

No, no, no. Medicaid expansion would NOT = takeover of health care. No, no, no again. Medicaid currently covers 49 million Americans, at a cost in 2008 of $204 billion or $4,163 per person. Adding 10-12 million to the rolls would mean ~ 61 million Americans covered by Medicaid. Administrative overhead costs, by the way , have no bearing on the issue; the current health care debate is not even partially about that, but about overall cost, outcomes, and coverage. And even though Medicaid covers twice the population of Canada, adding 10 million people to it would NOT be a "federal takeover of health care." There's still another 257 million or so Americans who don't use Medicaid.

Ah, so you dismiss his (well-qualified) argument by ... actually, you never even say what's wrong with it except to say that it's wrong and to pretend he's violating the Constitution without showing how. Why shouldn't the Supreme Court make some kind of statement to smack down the completely made-up farcical conservative claim that the Constitution does not allow any kind of wealth redistribution schemes?

Do I have to spell it out more clearly? Here's the relevant quote from Obama: It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. The Warren Court, WRT wealth redistribution, failed to find a justification for it in the Constitution. In Obama's opinion.

[Patrick Degan]

Ah, so you dismiss his (well-qualified) argument by ... actually, you never even say what's wrong with it except to say that it's wrong and to pretend he's violating the Constitution without showing how. Why shouldn't the Supreme Court make some kind of statement to smack down the completely made-up farcical conservative claim that the Constitution does not allow any kind of wealth redistribution schemes?

Do I have to spell it out more clearly? Here's the relevant quote from Obama: It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. The Warren Court, WRT wealth redistribution, failed to find a justification for it in the Constitution. In Obama's opinion.

And there is also no clause in the Constitution which prohibits it, either —irrespective of Obama's or anybody else's opinion on the matter.

[Axis Kast]

Because... you say so? Republicans have exactly been opposed to any change which threatens the preferred status-quo of corporate and plutocratic power and privilege. This has been demonstrated most pointedly just this summer when Chuck Grassley essentially stabbed that poor tool Max Baucus in the back when he outright said that he and his fellow Republicans were going to vote NO to ANY healthcare reform measure, no matter what compromise Baucus tried to come up with.

Merely your very negative perception of the Republican Party. The case of Sarah Palin alone proves that conservatives are not so hidebound as to oppose all change, irrespective of what it might be. This suggests that, given the correct incentives, they are capable of voting for other-than-traditional agendas.

You offer up rhetoric, I point to deeds —specifically, Iraq and of course Project For A New American Century, which outlined the plan for unending American global hegemony. Isolationst my ass: the only reason conservatives opposed Bill Clinton's interventions was because it didn't fit in with their own vision for the future, in addition to it simply being a Clinton initiative which was enough reason as far as they were concerned to oppose it; not because they wanted to retreat back into Fortress America and nail the doors and windows shut.

During his foreign policy debate with Al Gore at Wake Forest University on October 11, 2000, George W. Bush declared that the United States should use its power "humbly," opposed the continued deployment of U.S. forces in the Balkans, and explicitly rejected policies of "nation-building."

Funny how their disdain for "reckless" spending is always aimed at programmes which on any objective analysis will actually raise standards of living overall —and always on the same unexamined premises. The practical effect, however, is to end up putting the screws tighter on the middle and working classes while wealth continues to be transferred upward. Which is more than mere coincidence.

If my objections are strawmen, then why are you investing in conspiracy theories?

Which is not quite the point of my argument in the above quote (which was actually about the support you derive from a stable, functional society). But, as to how America will be negatively impacted without major healthcare reform/

I believe I will be negatively impacted; I disagree that you, Deegan, are somehow an essential source of my prosperity.

As always, I am not responsible for your fantasies.

This discussion is really all about what we should fairly expect from government; the expectation has been rising steadily since the 1930s. At some point, expectations began to outrun capability. Your replies on New Orleans missed the mark: repeat surveys prove that Americans are resistant to government orders during disaster, and act on their own timelines; they also prove that most American don't know the "inputs" of effective disaster preparedness. Just because the government is authorized to do something by law does not mean it can adequately deliver on those theoretical promises - even if funded at many times the current level. Private responsibility should be the cornerstone of preparedness efforts; government assistance should be the variable that is acted upon, not the only resort. The healthcare debate feeds into ongoing reification of government to solve all problems; look at the vastly unrealistic expectations being placed on Obama's shoulders. I'm sure you'll actually agree.

Because, as a public utility, a national health service acts as a guaranteed universal access to a service without which a person will die —health care. By contrast, you won't die if you don't have wireless internet.

But you might be ignorant. Some of your taxes, in your own words, go toward Pell Grants. Obviously, you value an educated society.

This has nothing to do with "looking into peoples' souls".

Please address the issue and provide proof that Christian charity reflects a desire for tax breaks.

I don't suppose it would be too much to ask for you to actually provide evidence which backs your little "rebuttal", now would it?

Your article does not provide evidence for key suppositions. It is on you to find the evidence, if you plan to make arguments that the article doesn't at all substantiate.

So has Los Angeles. So has San Francisco. So has Miami. So has Houston. So has Galveston. So has Brownsville. So has Charleston. So has Mobile. So has Boston and New York. So has every city which has located where civilisation usually congregates, which isn't always the "perfectly safe" location. But it isn't practicable, however, to simply relocate a major metropolis as if it were just Buttfuck Township, population 200 or so, in the middle of Podunk County. Especially not one which is the fifth largest major seaport in the United States, which has major riverine, coastal, overland and air transportation routes converging in a central hub, occupies part of the relatively short stretch of the Mississippi River that is able to accommodate deep-draft oceangoing ships, and also serves as a major supply and support point for the Gulf oil and fishing industries because of its proximity to those assets.

And yet nobody requires that anybody build homes on flood plains. Industrial assets and public facilities are something else again.

The question is not whether religious association is suggested, Axi. It's whether or not Kristol's viewpoints are operationally the same as a Calvinist framework, especially if it also is the framework which underlies the conservative worldview whether expressed in religious or secular terminology.

You indicated that he was making a "Clavinist" argument, not that his argument sounded a lot like Calvinism.

[Patrick Degan]

Because... you say so? Republicans have exactly been opposed to any change which threatens the preferred status-quo of corporate and plutocratic power and privilege. This has been demonstrated most pointedly just this summer when Chuck Grassley essentially stabbed that poor tool Max Baucus in the back when he outright said that he and his fellow Republicans were going to vote NO to ANY healthcare reform measure, no matter what compromise Baucus tried to come up with.

Merely your very negative perception of the Republican Party. The case of Sarah Palin alone proves that conservatives are not so hidebound as to oppose all change, irrespective of what it might be. This suggests that, given the correct incentives, they are capable of voting for other-than-traditional agendas.

You'll pardon me for laughing, I trust. Sarah Palin got vaulted to the national stage only as a desperation move to try to counter the "historical" weight of the Obama ticket fielding the first black candidate for president by putting up the GOP's first woman on a national ticket (something the Democratic Party had already done in 1984, BTW, and was therefore hardly groundbreaking) and in hopes of splitting the female vote —chiefly by drawing away Hillary Clinton supporters. Other than the fact that Palin has a pair of boobs, she represents no change whatsoever to the GOP's ideology, especially as the party played on the racial fears of white voters most shamelessly and Yukon Barbie did nothing whatsoever to quell any of that sort of shit going down at her own rallies, indeed simply smiled indulgently as it spun out. Palin wasn't an expression of progressivism but cynicism. She was a marketing dodge.

You offer up rhetoric, I point to deeds —specifically, Iraq and of course Project For A New American Century, which outlined the plan for unending American global hegemony. Isolationst my ass: the only reason conservatives opposed Bill Clinton's interventions was because it didn't fit in with their own vision for the future, in addition to it simply being a Clinton initiative which was enough reason as far as they were concerned to oppose it; not because they wanted to retreat back into Fortress America and nail the doors and windows shut.

During his foreign policy debate with Al Gore at Wake Forest University on October 11, 2000, George W. Bush declared that the United States should use its power "humbly," opposed the continued deployment of U.S. forces in the Balkans, and explicitly rejected policies of "nation-building."

And so...? Bushy-boy was lying through his teeth, as events markedly demonstrated. From day one of his maladministration, he had on his cabinet both Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld who tried to goad Clinton into declaring war on Iraq in 1998, and subsequently ended up using 9-11 as his excuse to go to war with Iraq and implement the grand PNAC plan. Again, you point to rhetoric, I point to deeds.

Funny how their disdain for "reckless" spending is always aimed at programmes which on any objective analysis will actually raise standards of living overall —and always on the same unexamined premises. The practical effect, however, is to end up putting the screws tighter on the middle and working classes while wealth continues to be transferred upward. Which is more than mere coincidence.

If my objections are strawmen, then why are you investing in conspiracy theories?

I'm sorry, Axi, but you don't actually refute an argument simply by screeching "conspiracy theory" at it. Nothing so outlandish is required to observe the practical effect of GOP policies.

Which is not quite the point of my argument in the above quote (which was actually about the support you derive from a stable, functional society). But, as to how America will be negatively impacted without major healthcare reform/

I believe I will be negatively impacted; I disagree that you, Deegan, are somehow an essential source of my prosperity.

And yet another stupid strawman. At no point did I claim to be the personal source of your properity and for you to say otherwise is quite simply an outright lie.

As always, I am not responsible for your fantasies.

This discussion is really all about what we should fairly expect from government; the expectation has been rising steadily since the 1930s. At some point, expectations began to outrun capability. Your replies on New Orleans missed the mark: repeat surveys prove that Americans are resistant to government orders during disaster, and act on their own timelines; they also prove that most American don't know the "inputs" of effective disaster preparedness. Just because the government is authorized to do something by law does not mean it can adequately deliver on those theoretical promises - even if funded at many times the current level. Private responsibility should be the cornerstone of preparedness efforts; government assistance should be the variable that is acted upon, not the only resort. The healthcare debate feeds into ongoing reification of government to solve all problems; look at the vastly unrealistic expectations being placed on Obama's shoulders. I'm sure you'll actually agree.

Again, you don't know dick about what happened in New Orleans, and why don't you quote us some of these surveys you mention, as well as comparisons with how communities faced with an imminent disaster have actually reacted when the evacuation orders get issued?

As far as the healthcare debate is concerned, nobody is expecting it to "solve all problems" but lift off some burdens from millions. The only people tossing the "expecting government to solve all problems" shibboleth into the debate are the people reaching for any rhetorical weapon as part of their effort to block reform.

Because, as a public utility, a national health service acts as a guaranteed universal access to a service without which a person will die —health care. By contrast, you won't die if you don't have wireless internet.

But you might be ignorant. Some of your taxes, in your own words, go toward Pell Grants. Obviously, you value an educated society.

Which does not automatically require personal wireless internet. We still have these things called "books" and "schools" and "libraries". Beyond that, the point remains: you won't die if you don't have wireless internet, but you will die if you can't get healthcare.

This has nothing to do with "looking into peoples' souls".

Please address the issue and provide proof that Christian charity reflects a desire for tax breaks.

And here we go with yet another stupid strawman. Your rhetorical dishonesty continues to grow in this thread. Let's go back to what I actually said instead of your bullshit reinterpretation of what I said:

Because the tax deductions for doing so, of course, have no influence whatsoever upon that decision, I suppose? Or the demands of church-membership? Take those away and what incentive is there to continue charitable giving even to the extent that now exists?

Charitable giving is clearly incentive-tied: either due to the demands imposed upon church members as part of "Christian duty" or to garner a tax advantage —especially since every dollar sent off to charity is taking away from your family's income. If you took away one incentive, charitable giving would still be forthcoming only now there would be less of it and less incentive except the appeal to emotion. Take away both incentives, and you not only have no emotional reason to give to charity but experience a financial disadvantage in doing so as well. The tax breaks offset the financial loss. It really should not be necessary to point out something so obvious.

I don't suppose it would be too much to ask for you to actually provide evidence which backs your little "rebuttal", now would it?

Your article does not provide evidence for key suppositions. It is on you to find the evidence, if you plan to make arguments that the article doesn't at all substantiate.

Translation: "I don't have to actually rebut anything beyond saying it's rebutted". Typical.

So has Los Angeles. So has San Francisco. So has Miami. So has Houston. So has Galveston. So has Brownsville. So has Charleston. So has Mobile. So has Boston and New York. So has every city which has located where civilisation usually congregates, which isn't always the "perfectly safe" location. But it isn't practicable, however, to simply relocate a major metropolis as if it were just Buttfuck Township, population 200 or so, in the middle of Podunk County. Especially not one which is the fifth largest major seaport in the United States, which has major riverine, coastal, overland and air transportation routes converging in a central hub, occupies part of the relatively short stretch of the Mississippi River that is able to accommodate deep-draft oceangoing ships, and also serves as a major supply and support point for the Gulf oil and fishing industries because of its proximity to those assets.

And yet nobody requires that anybody build homes on flood plains. Industrial assets and public facilities are something else again.

Are you actually suggesting that we leave the facilities intact where they are but require the workforce for those facilities to commute from far inland?

The question is not whether religious association is suggested, Axi. It's whether or not Kristol's viewpoints are operationally the same as a Calvinist framework, especially if it also is the framework which underlies the conservative worldview whether expressed in religious or secular terminology.

You indicated that he was making a "Calvinist" argument, not that his argument sounded a lot like Calvinism.

A difference which makes no difference IS no difference.

[Axis Kast]

You'll pardon me for laughing, I trust. Sarah Palin got vaulted to the national stage only as a desperation move to try to counter the "historical" weight of the Obama ticket fielding the first black candidate for president by putting up the GOP's first woman on a national ticket (something the Democratic Party had already done in 1984, BTW, and was therefore hardly groundbreaking) and in hopes of splitting the female vote —chiefly by drawing away Hillary Clinton supporters. Other than the fact that Palin has a pair of boobs, she represents no change whatsoever to the GOP's ideology, especially as the party played on the racial fears of white voters most shamelessly and Yukon Barbie did nothing whatsoever to quell any of that sort of shit going down at her own rallies, indeed simply smiled indulgently as it spun out. Palin wasn't an expression of progressivism but cynicism. She was a marketing dodge.

And yet, if this were the 1970s, the same behavior on the part of the Republican Party would have been unthinkable. And it was the GOP that Colin Powell was the first African American appointed as Secretary of State; or that Condoleezza Rice, an African American woman, was National Security Adviser before she inherited that position.

The idea that these clear changes in attitude are somehow nullified by the fact that these individuals share, or shared, conservative values is moot: no appointment in politics at that level is made without some expectation that the individual chosen to hold the portfolio is going to push a specific agenda.

And so...? Bushy-boy was lying through his teeth, as events markedly demonstrated. From day one of his maladministration, he had on his cabinet both Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld who tried to goad Clinton into declaring war on Iraq in 1998, and subsequently ended up using 9-11 as his excuse to go to war with Iraq and implement the grand PNAC plan. Again, you point to rhetoric, I point to deeds.

If a man falls off a roof, do you conclude he jumped? The consequence is sometimes the same.

Action against Iraq was made possible because Bush had a clear change of heart after 9/11, when arguments made by his cabinet about the imminent danger of even small states were even more convincing in light of the extraordinary impact made by less than a dozen men, open-source information, and under $100,000 cash.

I'm sorry, Axi, but you don't actually refute an argument simply by screeching "conspiracy theory" at it. Nothing so outlandish is required to observe the practical effect of GOP policies.

We are drawing distinction between practical effect and intended effect, however, and so the fact that Republicans often get outcomes inconsistent with their desired ends is absolutely important.

And yet another stupid strawman. At no point did I claim to be the personal source of your properity and for you to say otherwise is quite simply an outright lie.

It is your contention that without universal health care, my standard of living will decline. You have proven only that health care reform is compelling for financial reasons, not extension of insurance or medical coverage.

Again, you don't know dick about what happened in New Orleans, and why don't you quote us some of these surveys you mention, as well as comparisons with how communities faced with an imminent disaster have actually reacted when the evacuation orders get issued?

Gladly. Here. And here.

Most of the American public is unaware of what is even meant by the term "preparedness." Many represent that they are prepared without (A) adequate supplies of drinking water; (B) a communications plan that is understood by all members of the household; (C) adequate stocks of non-perishable food; (D) understanding of local emergency management protocols governing evacuation, specifically routing.

As far as the healthcare debate is concerned, nobody is expecting it to "solve all problems" but lift off some burdens from millions. The only people tossing the "expecting government to solve all problems" shibboleth into the debate are the people reaching for any rhetorical weapon as part of their effort to block reform.

No; it's a debate that this country ought to be having regardless of what is decided re: health coverage.

Which does not automatically require personal wireless internet. We still have these things called "books" and "schools" and "libraries". Beyond that, the point remains: you won't die if you don't have wireless internet, but you will die if you can't get healthcare.

We aren't referring to health care anymore; we're referring to what you think the average American should be made to pay for, in terms of public goods. Clearly, you do not believe that I should be made to pay only for those things that will ensure life -- food, shelter, and medicine. You favor Pell Grants, do you not? And you wouldn't oppose the idea that some of our tax money should go to schools?

Probably, you would agree that a child without a computer is at enormous disadvantage in the modern school system. The Internet, too.

Charitable giving is clearly incentive-tied: either due to the demands imposed upon church members as part of "Christian duty" or to garner a tax advantage —especially since every dollar sent off to charity is taking away from your family's income. If you took away one incentive, charitable giving would still be forthcoming only now there would be less of it and less incentive except the appeal to emotion. Take away both incentives, and you not only have no emotional reason to give to charity but experience a financial disadvantage in doing so as well. The tax breaks offset the financial loss. It really should not be necessary to point out something so obvious.

Everything is incentive-tied. The question is whether the "offset" provided by tax breaks is enough to make a significant impact on tithing, if removed.

Translation: "I don't have to actually rebut anything beyond saying it's rebutted". Typical.

The article gives evidence for its claim that Christians would probably withhold charity to more distant communities? I must have missed it. Why don't you show me.

The article doesn't make equivocation between charity and entitlement? Did you actually read it yourself?

Are you actually suggesting that we leave the facilities intact where they are but require the workforce for those facilities to commute from far inland?

Are you actually suggesting that we rebuild and restore New Orleans to conditions which we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, are vulnerable to massively destructive flooding?

A difference which makes no difference IS no difference.

A man who sounds a lot like a Calvinist may not be a Calvinist, just as a man who looks a lot like me is not automatically my brother. You cannot prove Kristol's intent. In fact, when asked to provided evidence supporting your interpretation of Kristol's position, you instead posted an article discussing the relationship between discussion of human worth and Puritanism... when discussions of human worth are not contingent upon belief in Puritan values.

[Patrick Degan]

You'll pardon me for laughing, I trust. Sarah Palin got vaulted to the national stage only as a desperation move to try to counter the "historical" weight of the Obama ticket fielding the first black candidate for president by putting up the GOP's first woman on a national ticket (something the Democratic Party had already done in 1984, BTW, and was therefore hardly groundbreaking) and in hopes of splitting the female vote —chiefly by drawing away Hillary Clinton supporters. Other than the fact that Palin has a pair of boobs, she represents no change whatsoever to the GOP's ideology, especially as the party played on the racial fears of white voters most shamelessly and Yukon Barbie did nothing whatsoever to quell any of that sort of shit going down at her own rallies, indeed simply smiled indulgently as it spun out. Palin wasn't an expression of progressivism but cynicism. She was a marketing dodge.

And yet, if this were the 1970s, the same behavior on the part of the Republican Party would have been unthinkable. And it was the GOP that Colin Powell was the first African American appointed as Secretary of State; or that Condoleezza Rice, an African American woman, was National Security Adviser before she inherited that position.

The idea that these clear changes in attitude are somehow nullified by the fact that these individuals share, or shared, conservative values is moot: no appointment in politics at that level is made without some expectation that the individual chosen to hold the portfolio is going to push a specific agenda.

I'm sorry, but making a couple of tweaks here and there does not prove progressive attitudes on the part of the GOP. Adding Condi Rice to the administration did not prevent the party from engaging in racial-fearmongering during election campaigns and the Nixonian "Southern Strategy" remains in the GOP playbook. Putting Sarah Palin on a national ticket did not herald a new shift in women's issues for the party, which among other things remains solidly anti abortion rights. You're making an even bigger fool of yourself than you already are trying to advance this argument in the first place.

And so...? Bushy-boy was lying through his teeth, as events markedly demonstrated. From day one of his maladministration, he had on his cabinet both Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld who tried to goad Clinton into declaring war on Iraq in 1998, and subsequently ended up using 9-11 as his excuse to go to war with Iraq and implement the grand PNAC plan. Again, you point to rhetoric, I point to deeds.

If a man falls off a roof, do you conclude he jumped? The consequence is sometimes the same.

Non-sequitur.

Action against Iraq was made possible because Bush had a clear change of heart after 9/11, when arguments made by his cabinet about the imminent danger of even small states were even more convincing in light of the extraordinary impact made by less than a dozen men, open-source information, and under $100,000 cash.

And Richard Clarke already put the lie to that one in his book Against All Enemies and on the 60 Minutes interview in 2004: Bush wanted a Saddam/9-11 link —he was practically demanding that it be found. Do yourself a favour, Axi, and don't reopen a debate you got your sorry ass kicked multiple times on.

I'm sorry, Axi, but you don't actually refute an argument simply by screeching "conspiracy theory" at it. Nothing so outlandish is required to observe the practical effect of GOP policies.

We are drawing distinction between practical effect and intended effect, however, and so the fact that Republicans often get outcomes inconsistent with their desired ends is absolutely important.

Once again, you'll pardon me for laughing, I trust. If indeed the massive transfer of wealth to the upper classes and the economic stagnation of the middle and working classes was never the intended effect of Republican economic policies, then why do they keep implementing those same policies each and every time they gain power? Oh, let me guess —it's merely one of those goofy, inexplicable "coincidences" that these things occur repeatedly.

And yet another stupid strawman. At no point did I claim to be the personal source of your properity and for you to say otherwise is quite simply an outright lie.

It is your contention that without universal health care, my standard of living will decline. You have proven only that health care reform is compelling for financial reasons, not extension of insurance or medical coverage.

Nice little backpedal, Axi. Now try demonstrating that your standard of living would remain at the level you currently enjoy if you had to face a huge medical bill staring you in the face.

Again, you don't know dick about what happened in New Orleans, and why don't you quote us some of these surveys you mention, as well as comparisons with how communities faced with an imminent disaster have actually reacted when the evacuation orders get issued?

Gladly. Here. And here.

Most of the American public is unaware of what is even meant by the term "preparedness." Many represent that they are prepared without (A) adequate supplies of drinking water; (B) a communications plan that is understood by all members of the household; (C) adequate stocks of non-perishable food; (D) understanding of local emergency management protocols governing evacuation, specifically routing.

And once again, Axi, reality conspires to make a fool of you: Thousands Evacuate New Orleans Area In Advance Of Hurricane Gustav, Thousands Of Gulf Coast Families Evacuate As Hurricane Gustav Approaches, and Hurricane Gustav Forces Millions To Evacuate.

In New Orleans, which was badly hit by Hurricane Katrina three years ago, Mayor Ray Nagin ordered the evacuation ahead of the "big, ugly storm."

    "I encourage everyone to leave," he said, warning that anyone refuses to leave would face extreme danger.
    He also ordered a curfew and warned of harsh punishment on those who dare to loot amid the evacuation.
    Most local residents, with a miserable memory of Katrina, jammed evacuation routes, while the government has provided trains and buses to facilitate the evacuation.
    Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said about 1.9 million people had fled the coastal areas and only 10,000 were estimated to have stayed in New Orleans.
    "It is not too late to evacuate, (and) I strongly encourage you to do so," he made the appeal at a press conference.
    Thousands more had left Mississippi, Alabama and southeast Texas, according to local media.

You see, fool, it doesn't matter what people say in a survey when they're able to talk tough-guy about hurricanes and the "guvabint". When the storms are approaching, a funny thing happens: most people actually want to live. They get out of the storm's way. One of the reasons why there hasn't been anybody in Biloxi stupid enough to try to stick around and hold a hurricane party since Camille.

There were actually two parts to my challenge and you failed to answer part two.

Furthermore, preparations, evacuation coordination, and post-storm response were better organised for Gustav than they were for Katrina. Which means that Gulf Coast residents were indeed better prepared and better aware, and so were local, state, and even federal officials.

Which does not automatically require personal wireless internet. We still have these things called "books" and "schools" and "libraries". Beyond that, the point remains: you won't die if you don't have wireless internet, but you will die if you can't get healthcare.

We aren't referring to health care anymore; we're referring to what you think the average American should be made to pay for, in terms of public goods. Clearly, you do not believe that I should be made to pay only for those things that will ensure life -- food, shelter, and medicine. You favor Pell Grants, do you not? And you wouldn't oppose the idea that some of our tax money should go to schools? Probably, you would agree that a child without a computer is at enormous disadvantage in the modern school system. The Internet, too.

No, that is what YOU are referring to, in yet another attempt to derail the discussion from the issues actually before the bar.

Charitable giving is clearly incentive-tied: either due to the demands imposed upon church members as part of "Christian duty" or to garner a tax advantage —especially since every dollar sent off to charity is taking away from your family's income. If you took away one incentive, charitable giving would still be forthcoming only now there would be less of it and less incentive except the appeal to emotion. Take away both incentives, and you not only have no emotional reason to give to charity but experience a financial disadvantage in doing so as well. The tax breaks offset the financial loss. It really should not be necessary to point out something so obvious.

Everything is incentive-tied. The question is whether the "offset" provided by tax breaks is enough to make a significant impact on tithing, if removed.

Tithing and tax-breaks for charitable giving are two separate mechanisms. Nice try attempting to conflate the two, however.

Translation: "I don't have to actually rebut anything beyond saying it's rebutted". Typical.

The article gives evidence for its claim that Christians would probably withhold charity to more distant communities? I must have missed it. Why don't you show me.

The article doesn't make equivocation between charity and entitlement? Did you actually read it yourself?

I did, as a matter of fact, and the article was making a point of rebutting the conservative argument about replacing welfare with charity, not attempting to equivocate between the two:

Most donations go to churches, but churches are an excellent example of the localized nature of charities. And churches with even national charity campaigns hardly spend a substantial amount of their money on helping the poor. Until recently, the Seventh-day Adventist church had one of the most enviable records of charity collections of any U.S. religious denomination. Yet its department devoted to helping out the poor and needy -- the Dorcas Society -- received only a tiny fraction of the church's donations. Instead, the vast majority went to church administration, religious and educational facilities, and a remarkable world-wide missionary effort to convert other nationalities to their faith. (7)

Furthermore, charity is a drop in the bucket compared to all the social spending conducted by the government. The total assets (as opposed to merely the income from endowments) of America's 34,000 foundations add up to only about 10 percent of current government expenditures for social welfare and related domestic programs. (9) As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan says, "There are... not enough social workers, not enough nuns, not enough Salvation Army workers" to care for the millions of people who would be dropped from the welfare rolls.

. . .

To replace welfare with charity, our society would have to boost its charitable giving tenfold. Which raises an interesting point: conservatives bitterly assail the federal government for making them pay taxes to help the poor. Why, then, would they turn around and happily surrender an equal amount to charity? The answer, of course, is that they would not. Once conservatives are freed from their obligation to help the needy, charitable donations will continue to languish as they always have.

Here conservatives might return to Olasky's argument: that they would feel more inclined to give to charities that espoused traditional family values and conservative morals. But, as we have seen, Olasky's idea of charity is to dispense advice, not funds. There is no question that a charity that simply tells the needy, "Get a job," is less expensive to run. But it should be pointed out that Olasky's entire argument is really a disingenuous change of subject. The original argument was that charity could replace welfare. In Olasky's world of privatized philanthropy, this is not the case; welfare would be eliminated but charity donations would not rise to replace it. This is a different argument, one about the benefits of eliminating most financial aid to the poor, not replacing it.

Are you actually suggesting that we leave the facilities intact where they are but require the workforce for those facilities to commute from far inland?

Are you actually suggesting that we rebuild and restore New Orleans to conditions which we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, are vulnerable to massively destructive flooding?

It is already occurring, fool. And it is not outside of engineering possibility to do so —particulary as the Dutch have been doing so on a far larger scale for nearly six centuries to protect their entire country from the North Sea. And since the aforementioned assets actually require a residential workforce to properly staff them, there really is not much choice in the matter. Especially as keeping those assets functional would require anti-flood protection anyway.

A man who sounds a lot like a Calvinist may not be a Calvinist, just as a man who looks a lot like me is not automatically my brother. You cannot prove Kristol's intent. In fact, when asked to provided evidence supporting your interpretation of Kristol's position, you instead posted an article discussing the relationship between discussion of human worth and Puritanism... when discussions of human worth are not contingent upon belief in Puritan values.

Semantics whoring will not save your non-argument.

[Axis Kast]

I'm sorry, but making a couple of tweaks here and there does not prove progressive attitudes on the part of the GOP. Adding Condi Rice to the administration did not prevent the party from engaging in racial-fearmongering during election campaigns and the Nixonian "Southern Strategy" remains in the GOP playbook. Putting Sarah Palin on a national ticket did not herald a new shift in women's issues for the party, which among other things remains solidly anti abortion rights. You're making an even bigger fool of yourself than you already are trying to advance this argument in the first place.

I'm sorry, but ignoring the content of my argument to make the spurious claim that one is either fully as progressive as Deegan likes, or has shown no inclination toward change at all, is not only wrong, but fundamentally dishonest.
Let's also not confuse abortion as a "woman's issue." The reason people oppose abortion, men and women included, is that they believe it is fundamentally murder; the destruction of life already begun. It isn't because they want to grind women under heel. I can support abortion rights, and still understand that much.

Non-sequitur.

That is fundamentally the way you approach problems; of politics and religion.

And Richard Clarke already put the lie to that one in his book Against All Enemies and on the 60 Minutes interview in 2004: Bush wanted a Saddam/9-11 link —he was practically demanding that it be found. Do yourself a favour, Axi, and don't reopen a debate you got your sorry ass kicked multiple times on.

How does unrealistic pursuit of a particular theory after the event in question invalidate any of what I said? Oh... that's right: it doesn't.
The idea that small states were incorrectly seen as a non-issue before 9/11 is, as I've pointed out, repeated in much of the formal policy literature. The idea is also quite popular in academic circles; I'd challenge you to attempt to matriculate from any political science department in the nation that offers courses on national/international security issues and escape having to read at least one or two articles that talk about the "new globalization" and the new threat posed by non-state actors, who themselves have only a fraction of the resources of even a failing state.

Once again, you'll pardon me for laughing, I trust. If indeed the massive transfer of wealth to the upper classes and the economic stagnation of the middle and working classes was never the intended effect of Republican economic policies, then why do they keep implementing those same policies each and every time they gain power? Oh, let me guess —it's merely one of those goofy, inexplicable "coincidences" that these things occur repeatedly.

Because, as you are only too happy to tell us, the fundamental assumptions underlying their policies are often wrong? Or shall you next take on the Herculean task to tell me that millions of Republican voters are consciously voting against what they know, well and truly, are their best interests?

Nice little backpedal, Axi. Now try demonstrating that your standard of living would remain at the level you currently enjoy if you had to face a huge medical bill staring you in the face.

So without universal health care, my medical bills will inevitably rise?

You see, fool, it doesn't matter what people say in a survey when they're able to talk tough-guy about hurricanes and the "guvabint". When the storms are approaching, a funny thing happens: most people actually want to live. They get out of the storm's way. One of the reasons why there hasn't been anybody in Biloxi stupid enough to try to stick around and hold a hurricane party since Camille.

Proving that Oklahoma City, Oklahoma had a plan to cater to 400 evacuees? That federal resources functioned properly? That's your strong evidence that American citizens are better prepared?
I'd also like to see some evidence that people outside of New Orleans, where there was firsthand learning about what to expect from the government at all levels, are absorbing these lessons correctly.

No, that is what YOU are referring to, in yet another attempt to derail the discussion from the issues actually before the bar.

No, I am attempting to point out what Republicans are most worried about. And it feeds into arguments about who determines what you or I need, and how much of it we have to pay for.

Tithing and tax-breaks for charitable giving are two separate mechanisms. Nice try attempting to conflate the two, however.

Churches do charity work because they are instructed to do so by Christ. They could also keep the money and avoid doing charity work. I wonder how well that would go over...

I did, as a matter of fact, and the article was making a point of rebutting the conservative argument about replacing welfare with charity, not attempting to equivocate between the two:

Charity and entitlement are very different; to use the two words as if they mean the same thing is to be incorrect at best, and dishonest at worst.

It is already occurring, fool. And it is not outside of engineering possibility to do so —particulary as the Dutch have been doing so on a far larger scale for nearly six centuries to protect their entire country from the North Sea. And since the aforementioned assets actually require a residential workforce to properly staff them, there really is not much choice in the matter. Especially as keeping those assets functional would require anti-flood protection anyway.

As I recall, the Dutch style of levee is not what was chosen for New Orleans, which still has only very substandard flood control mechanisms in place. Mechanisms that leave people exceptionally vulnerable.
And since when has staffing essential infrastructure required millions of people?

Semantics whoring will not save your non-argument.

This argument is about Kristol. You haven't even tried to discuss him. Concession accepted.

[Patrick Degan]

I'm sorry, but making a couple of tweaks here and there does not prove progressive attitudes on the part of the GOP. Adding Condi Rice to the administration did not prevent the party from engaging in racial-fearmongering during election campaigns and the Nixonian "Southern Strategy" remains in the GOP playbook. Putting Sarah Palin on a national ticket did not herald a new shift in women's issues for the party, which among other things remains solidly anti abortion rights. You're making an even bigger fool of yourself than you already are trying to advance this argument in the first place.

I'm sorry, but ignoring the content of my argument to make the spurious claim that one is either fully as progressive as Deegan likes, or has shown no inclination toward change at all, is not only wrong, but fundamentally dishonest.

I would pay attention to the "content" of your argument if it actually had any content. Pointing to a couple of token black figures and arguing that having a national GOP ticket figure with boobies as proof that the GOP has become more progressive is laughable in the face of that party's ongoing regressive ideological stance —which includes employing dog-whistle racism in its propaganda. Given that, you're the last person to accuse anybody of fundamental dishonesty.

Let's also not confuse abortion as a "woman's issue." The reason people oppose abortion, men and women included, is that they believe it is fundamentally murder; the destruction of life already begun. It isn't because they want to grind women under heel. I can support abortion rights, and still understand that much.

Abortion is a womens issue because it primarily involves the control of their own bodies. That the opposition couch the argument in purely emotional terms does not negate that essential fact.

Non-sequitur.

That is fundamentally the way you approach problems; of politics and religion.

By arguing illogic? I suppose to you that's a valid approach. Here it counts for dick.

And Richard Clarke already put the lie to that one in his book Against All Enemies and on the 60 Minutes interview in 2004: Bush wanted a Saddam/9-11 link —he was practically demanding that it be found. Do yourself a favour, Axi, and don't reopen a debate you got your sorry ass kicked multiple times on.

How does unrealistic pursuit of a particular theory after the event in question invalidate any of what I said? Oh... that's right: it doesn't.

Because... you say it doesn't?

The idea that small states were incorrectly seen as a non-issue before 9/11 is, as I've pointed out, repeated in much of the formal policy literature. The idea is also quite popular in academic circles; I'd challenge you to attempt to matriculate from any political science department in the nation that offers courses on national/international security issues and escape having to read at least one or two articles that talk about the "new globalization" and the new threat posed by non-state actors, who themselves have only a fraction of the resources of even a failing state.

Nice, but none of that is actually relevant to the issue at hand: whether or not 9-11 actually justified launching a war against another country which was uninvolved with that act, on specious evidence, and as the starting implementation of the grand PNAC plan of American world hegemony. Which belied all of Bushy-boy's blather about a "humble foreign policy" which never meant anything more to him than a talking-point.

Once again, you'll pardon me for laughing, I trust. If indeed the massive transfer of wealth to the upper classes and the economic stagnation of the middle and working classes was never the intended effect of Republican economic policies, then why do they keep implementing those same policies each and every time they gain power? Oh, let me guess —it's merely one of those goofy, inexplicable "coincidences" that these things occur repeatedly.

Because, as you are only too happy to tell us, the fundamental assumptions underlying their policies are often wrong? Or shall you next take on the Herculean task to tell me that millions of Republican voters are consciously voting against what they know, well and truly, are their best interests?

I can tell you exactly how millions of Republican voters have been gulled into voting against their own economic and social interests: by being fed drivel about how the GOP represents their "core values" and running campaigns based on abortion, gun rights, and keepin' dem queers from marryin. This has been hashed over on this board and in numerous surveys and analyses of voter attitudes. As long as the GOP keeps singing the "God, Guns, and No To Homos" song, that's enough to lull their faithful Bible Belt sheep into the fold every time.

Nice little backpedal, Axi. Now try demonstrating that your standard of living would remain at the level you currently enjoy if you had to face a huge medical bill staring you in the face.

So without universal health care, my medical bills will inevitably rise?

Did you just simply ignore the charts posted which demonstrated the projected rise in healthcare costs absent reform?

You see, fool, it doesn't matter what people say in a survey when they're able to talk tough-guy about hurricanes and the "guvabint". When the storms are approaching, a funny thing happens: most people actually want to live. They get out of the storm's way. One of the reasons why there hasn't been anybody in Biloxi stupid enough to try to stick around and hold a hurricane party since Camille.

Proving that Oklahoma City, Oklahoma had a plan to cater to 400 evacuees? That federal resources functioned properly? That's your strong evidence that American citizens are better prepared?

The level of evacuation which was greater and carried out far more efficently than Katrina is my evidence, asshole. I grow tired of your endless handwaving.

I'd also like to see some evidence that people outside of New Orleans, where there was firsthand learning about what to expect from the government at all levels, are absorbing these lessons correctly.

See Hurricane Gustav. You have no argument.

No, that is what YOU are referring to, in yet another attempt to derail the discussion from the issues actually before the bar.

No, I am attempting to point out what Republicans are most worried about. And it feeds into arguments about who determines what you or I need, and how much of it we have to pay for.

By employing red herrings about wireless internet? No, Axi, you're not actually demonstrating a damn thing beyond your usual inclination to obsfucate.

Tithing and tax-breaks for charitable giving are two separate mechanisms. Nice try attempting to conflate the two, however.

Churches do charity work because they are instructed to do so by Christ. They could also keep the money and avoid doing charity work. I wonder how well that would go over...

Nice, but that does not answer the question before the bar.

I did, as a matter of fact, and the article was making a point of rebutting the conservative argument about replacing welfare with charity, not attempting to equivocate between the two:

Charity and entitlement are very different; to use the two words as if they mean the same thing is to be incorrect at best, and dishonest at worst.

No, Axi, that's "charity" and "welfare", not "entitlement" which would be Social Security. You're really not qualified to call anybody dishonest.

It is already occurring, fool. And it is not outside of engineering possibility to do so —particulary as the Dutch have been doing so on a far larger scale for nearly six centuries to protect their entire country from the North Sea. And since the aforementioned assets actually require a residential workforce to properly staff them, there really is not much choice in the matter. Especially as keeping those assets functional would require anti-flood protection anyway.

As I recall, the Dutch style of levee is not what was chosen for New Orleans, which still has only very substandard flood control mechanisms in place. Mechanisms that leave people exceptionally vulnerable.

Which is why the reconstruction plans involve actually improving those defences, fool.

And since when has staffing essential infrastructure required millions of people?

You really don't get that whole relationship between industry and why it locates in or near actual settled population centres, do you?

Semantics whoring will not save your non-argument.

This argument is about Kristol. You haven't even tried to discuss him. Concession accepted.

We have been doing nothing but discussing him and your entire counter-argument has been that Kristol can't have a Calvinist worldview because he's Jewish, then you tried to nitpick the definition of Calvinism to weasel your way out of the argument. So you can just take that "concession accepted" pronouncement and shove it up your ass.