Saw this on a friend's facebook page, musing on the end of the guy's TV show (errrr... I mean... valiant defense of freedom!).
I love these "Screw those politicians! Now vote for my politician, who'll be great!" types. Does the Judge feel no cognitive dissonance at all when he does pieces like this?
I like certain politicians enough to drag myself out of my house and cast a vote for them. But I hope I don't sound like this when I do it. Obama is not going to revolutionize the country, people - and he's going to disappoint you in some way no matter who you are. But he'll do alright and I think you should vote for him.
If I ever say much of anything more than that, please show me this video.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Sorry, but I have to get this off my chest.
ReplyDeleteDo you not agree with the judge that the two parties are really both parties that support "welfare, war, debt, bailouts, and big government?", and that candidates rhetoric is mostly BS and politicians are master flip floppers? Do you see what the judge is trying to do here?
Ron Paul is no saint and I don't agree with him on everything, I'll give you that much. But do you feel no cognitive dissonance for trying to frame the judge as a mere deceptive cheerleader for his candidate and Ron Paul with the rest of the politicians as panderers? And what the judge said about politicians and the two party system in general aren't true? Ron Paul isn't Jesus Christ, but he is a very different politician then whats popular right now. Consistent and supports measures that aren't very popular for those who want to climb the ladder in Washington. Simply because you disagree with him doesn't have to prevent you from seeing this fact.
And to hark back to our original discussion on free market economics, you proclaimed that you were a free market economist, and now you say vote for Obama, because he'll do alright. Pardon me for sounding rude, but I'm having a hard time processing that one.
1. That they support welfare, war, debt, and bailouts does not mean there aren't good and bad ways to support it. Some politicians support it in better ways than others. "Big government" is left a little vague her.
Delete2. I agree candidate rhetoric is largely B.S. that's precisely the point of my post Patch! What kills me is that the Judge thinks this too... except about the ONE CANDIDATE that he thinks is great.
3. re: "But do you feel no cognitive dissonance for trying to frame the judge as a mere deceptive cheerleader for his candidate and Ron Paul with the rest of the politicians as panderers?" - I'm not sure if he's deceptive or deceived, but I certainly think it's an inconsistent sort of approach to politics.
4. "that aren't very popular for those who want to climb the ladder in Washington." - OK, I had to suppress laughter on this one. You can't be serious, can you? It's not a very good strategy for winning nation-wide office - as he's finding out. But it's an excellent way to climb the ladder in Washington if your base is in a somewhat smaller electorate.
1. re: "That they support welfare, war, debt, and bailouts does not mean there aren't good and bad ways to support it. Some politicians support it in better ways than others." ---Absolutely! BUT, on the topic of War, Ron Paul offers something that goes against BOTH platforms, hence, cognitive dissonance not necessarily an issue.
Delete2. re: "candidate rhetoric is largely B.S." --- Why can't someone have a view that supposes some / one candidate is less full of it than others? One can logically hold the position that the candidates most candidates fit into a specific mold, less one (ie. Ron Paul)
3. re: "I'm not sure if he's deceptive or deceived.. it's an inconsistent sort of approach" --- Its consistency is an empirical matter, namely, does Ron Paul represent a position unique from other R. and Obama? Of course, as far as Paul's economic theories, it's quite obvious he is deceived/ignorant.
*Note: I think Paul has awful domestic policy ideas. However, as a Canadian looking in, it appears that the good brought about by his foreign policy outweigh the bad domestically. Consider the cost (monetary, moral, social) of current wars?
On #2, this is largely my point. If you are willing to recognize there's a spectrum of unreasonableness and B.S. that's fine. What is kookier is the idea that all politicians are spouting B.S. except this one narrowly defined set of politicians who are going to defend freedom.
DeleteAt that point, don't tell me you're anti-politician. Just tell me you're a partisan Libertarian and a big Ron Paul booster. You sound exactly like a lot of other political-elite-boosters who tell me the whole system is bankrupt except for the select few they back.
On #3 - right, but other R. are different from Paul and Obama, and Obama is different from other R's and Paul. So?
"1. That they support welfare, war, debt, and bailouts does not mean there aren't good and bad ways to support it. Some politicians support it in better ways than others. "Big government" is left a little vague her."
DeleteThe two parties have done it consistently (supported big government). Supporting these measures repeatedly isn't a good way to solve our nation's problems (especially from the point of view of someone who espouses to be a free market economist).
Big government=more federal involvement in our economic and social lives. There has been an inexorable march upward in terms of federal involvement, in both parties, since the end of WWII. That was the judge's point when he went through Obama,Bush, Clinton, Bush Senior, and Reagan. The mainstream candidates=more of the same.
"2. I agree candidate rhetoric is largely B.S. that's precisely the point of my post Patch! What kills me is that the Judge thinks this too... except about the ONE CANDIDATE that he thinks is great.
3. re: "But do you feel no cognitive dissonance for trying to frame the judge as a mere deceptive cheerleader for his candidate and Ron Paul with the rest of the politicians as panderers?" - I'm not sure if he's deceptive or deceived, but I certainly think it's an inconsistent sort of approach to politics.
4. "that aren't very popular for those who want to climb the ladder in Washington." - OK, I had to suppress laughter on this one. You can't be serious, can you? It's not a very good strategy for winning nation-wide office - as he's finding out. But it's an excellent way to climb the ladder in Washington if your base is in a somewhat smaller electorate."
Yes, but do you think Ron Paul is different than the others? Thats his (and my) point. Like him or not, hes been a pretty consistent guy who for the past couple decades (in and out when he was in Congress) has stood the same on pretty much all of his issues (save the death penalty). Hes not like a normal candidate who constantly flip flops on issues and tries to pander to voters for some extra screen time. Hes a man with a message, and he'll sing it even if its unpopular in Washington.
He wasn't swimming in legions of fanboys or getting huge business political donations since he started being a politician. His rise to fame has only occurred since 2007/2008. Quite a long time for a payoff to work in Washington if you ask me, for it to count as an "excellent way" to establish a small fanbase. He still receives no respect in Washington, not supported by massive lobbyists, doesn't really get the same amount of media coverage/respect.
Bear in mind I'm not saying all politicians are thriving crooks working for the NWO and communicating with the mole men. I'm just saying the VAST majority of federal politicians are dominated by special interests and are out to enrich themselves, the status quo and their interests at the expense of us.
DeleteNo Patch, I do not agree.
ReplyDeleteI have only limited knowledge of US, being a non-citizen, but let me try:
1) Republicans and Democrats were both involved in welfare reform of the 1990s, and both wanted to limit it to all the but the very poorest.
2) Republicans and Democrats have both opposed different wars for different reasons in different times. A Republican government wished to negotiate with WMD-armed North Korea, but invaded Iraq. A Democratic government has stayed out of Syria, but started military operations in Central African Republic and Libya.
3) Recently, during the debt ceiling posturing fiasco, both the Democrats and the Republicans unveiled plans that seriously cut certain types of spending and raised certain types of taxes. The debate was on WHAT spending was to be cut or WHAT tax rates were to be raised.
4) Republicans like John McCain advocated a Swedish style bank nationalization instead of a bailout, for the reasons that the US government should own banks that it helps financially. So did particular Democrats. However, many others went for a bailout instead, based on what was feasible and on what terms banks could be made to agree.
5) As for big government, see the part on their fiscal policy, which is 3).
It sounds like it has less to do with what they support on principle, but rather how their policies change according to the time and situation. They are neither anti-war nor pro-war, but fall on either side of the fence based on the potential war being considered.
"2) Republicans and Democrats have both opposed different wars for different reasons in different times. A Republican government wished to negotiate with WMD-armed North Korea, but invaded Iraq. A Democratic government has stayed out of Syria, but started military operations in Central African Republic and Libya."
ReplyDeleteNo one ever said that they have different foreign policy goals, but they generally use the same tool (war) to achieve them. The other party always is generally against the party in power during a war.
"3) Recently, during the debt ceiling posturing fiasco, both the Democrats and the Republicans unveiled plans that seriously cut certain types of spending and raised certain types of taxes. The debate was on WHAT spending was to be cut or WHAT tax rates were to be raised."
Specific scenario when the spotlight was on them, so the Republicans had to give the appearance that they were actually trying serious reform. Especially when most of the cuts would take place in future budgets. Not to mention, its always hard to say Republicans are againist welfare when they defend Medicare. Especially the massive Medicare Part D. Again, they give the appearance of being radically different on issues to make it seem like there is actual conflict. Big government has swelled under Reagan, Bush, and Bush senior (and not just war, including welfare spending).
"4) Republicans like John McCain advocated a Swedish style bank nationalization instead of a bailout, for the reasons that the US government should own banks that it helps financially. So did particular Democrats. However, many others went for a bailout instead, based on what was feasible and on what terms banks could be made to agree."
I'm not saying that individual politicians may have different plans, but in the end they'll generally support big government. They would have all supported a bailout, in whatever form.
"But he'll do alright and I think you should vote for him."
ReplyDeleteYou're embarrassing yourself kid. Quit while you're ahead.
Not to put it so curtly as you did, but I am surprised by Daniel's advocacy for Obama, given that he himself has spoken of the inadequacy of Obama's stimulus and Obama's tendency to go for a relatively contractionary fiscal policy in weak recovery.
DeleteThose are not small issues. Then again, no other Democrat is running.