I think that you are wrong here. Pete Stark erred when he stated that Bush sent the soldiers of this country to Iraq for his amusement. Everyone knows that is blatantly false.
It was to keep the next generations of his family wealthy and connected enough that they can continue to think of themselves as an elite group of individuals instead of the thieves that they truly are.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
And there we have it. Hypocrisy rears its ugly head. Some of the same people who consider Bush stupid believe Stark to be a national hero when, in fact, they are both idiots.
Well, I know he's stupid. His views are far less idiotic, but he cannot speak them properly. At least he's not a pig, like bush and his gang.
With that aside, I just don't like when people say "oh he's an atheist, he must be an idiot". I'd spit in your face for saying that to me in person.
Also take into account there are people here who are annoyed or upset with this man and how he speaks, but then turn around and respect bush? Wow.
For believing in 'positive' rights (rights requiring action by others), he's clearly not as bright as you think he is. Might as well claim every American has a right to a Ferrari.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I could not care less whether Stark is an atheist, Romney is a mormon, or Bush a christian. I don't make my political choices contingent on a person's religion.
Between the two I do have more respect for Bush. While both Bush and Stark sound stupid when they speak, Bush doesn't go of on rants that heckle and belittle another politician. At least he gets points for that. Sorry, but Pete puts the Stark in "stark raving mad," and just looks foolish in the process. The right looked just as foolish when they went off on Clinton and the left doesn't look any less foolish when they go off on Bush like that.
This is great, I hope Stark and others keep it up. This will really resonate with the average voter! Although I think it would have been more effective if he had said Bush also eats babies.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
I see TLC tries the high minded principled leader with--Between the two I do have more respect for Bush. While both Bush and Stark sound stupid when they speak, Bush doesn't go of on rants that heckle and belittle another politician. At least he gets points for that. Sorry, but Pete puts the Stark in "stark raving mad," and just looks foolish in the process. The right looked just as foolish when they went off on Clinton and the left doesn't look any less foolish when they go off on Bush like that.
GWB has too many running dogs to do his attacks with. Cheney springs to mind. As do the swiftboat groups. But when push comes to shove, GWB will not condemn what others are saying in his behalf, even when its his own Veep or coming from within his own political campaign. And when it comes to making false charges against other countries, GWB seem to have no trouble lying his damn head off. So, I think we can safely dispose of the GWB gentleman of principle argument.
Mr. Stark simply does not have the running dogs GWB has, so he must say it himself. Maybe he exaggerates when he says for GWB's amusement, but I don't see him get upset
enough to see that our wounded troops get decent care, or see GWB bestir himself to do the diplomacy needed to end the fighting.
GWB has too many running dogs to do his attacks with. Cheney springs to mind. As do the swiftboat groups. But when push comes to shove, GWB will not condemn what others are saying in his behalf, even when its his own Veep or coming from within his own political campaign. And when it comes to making false charges against other countries, GWB seem to have no trouble lying his damn head off. So, I think we can safely dispose of the GWB gentleman of principle argument.
Mr. Stark simply does not have the running dogs GWB has, so he must say it himself. Maybe he exaggerates when he says for GWB's amusement, but I don't see him get upset
enough to see that our wounded troops get decent care, or see GWB bestir himself to do the diplomacy needed to end the fighting.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
LOL @ LL.
So Bush has his multitudes of minions to do his dirty work? I guess it can then be assumed that Stark is merely a minion as well and that we should look up the mountain to point a finger of blame for his tirade? Is Reid to blame? Pelosi? Or even gasp, Hillary, for loosing the Stark dog on Bush?
So Bush has his multitudes of minions to do his dirty work? I guess it can then be assumed that Stark is merely a minion as well and that we should look up the mountain to point a finger of blame for his tirade? Is Reid to blame? Pelosi? Or even gasp, Hillary, for loosing the Stark dog on Bush?
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
LOL @ TLC.
Democrats are not lock step organized like the GOP. Gasp Pete Stark is simply speaking for Peter Stark. Thank you for repeating his message. If you expect others to be as freaked out as you are over an insult to the credibility of GWB, you badly misunderstand how politely some of think Pete put it. Some of us would be far more insulting to the commander and thief.
No offense, but it's you I question, when you cannot tell the difference between the policies of providing healthcare to a nation's citizens - something that both fills the nation's obligations for the well-being of its citizens just as much as anything else it does, from protecting them from external attack to protecting them from crime to protecting them from poisonous foods, drink and medicines, etc., and giving them all Ferraris. This shows a huge lack of judgement, and a very high degree of blinding ideological indoctrination.
Stark understands the core role of the government serving its citizens, the importance of healthcare, and the fact as well of how healthcare helps the nation's economy, in part.
There was a time when short-sighted business owners were happy for people to work slavishly in factories alongside their children, not worrying about the facts of it killing people young, about the children not getting much education - things that hurt the nation long term, but made them more short term profits. It took the government to improve those issues, not only in creating righs for workers, but in building things like public colleges.
There was a time when 90% of the nation's elderly lived in poverty; now, 90% do not. That is mostly because of steps te government took.
The thing is, you are unable to tell the difference between providing someone medicine and providing them caviar, between providing them an ambulance ride and a Ferrari ride.
Stark founded a bank - he's a believer in the private sector where it makes sense. The private sector has befitted from the above-mentioned policies as ell, and they would benefit from the government providing the economic infrastructure, just as they do with roads and public colleges. It lets widget makers make widgets, not run healthcare plans, and it protects the weak and the unemployed, improving the pool of available workers and serving a humanitarian need.
Your politicians who oppose such healthcare are not some principled leaders trying to serve the people; those who are not similarly ideologues are serving the short-term desires of our nation's industries who profit from the lack of such healthcare being made available, the very, very wealthy industries who make the US pay far more for the same healthcare as any other nation in the world - and gives them plenty of money to donate to buy politicians. You are serving the selfish 'special interests' by following your blind ideology.
And you are causing the terrible suffering of many to continue by battling the government providing this service, as it provides others, one of the most basic, for its citizens.
And you are ignoring the terrible suffering of many caused by gov't. Historically, gov'ts have killed many more than have the 'high costs of healthcare', or whatever your boogieman de jour is today. Next time you're complaining about Bush's many abuses of power, maybe you ought to question why he has that power in the first place. People like you raise up government to huge levels, and then seem shocked and surprised when it fails to do as its told. I'm not shocked at all; it's merely the nature of the beast.
I'm not ignoring it at all. The fact is that there is a certain amount of power in society, and the libertarian fantasies of it not having any central authority are naive and dangerous - it always has had a central authority and always will. Sometimes it's a king or warlord or dictator who uses the masses for his own ends; we improved on that with democracy that gives the people more say in who has that power and how it's used.
By arguing for the government to build roads, to have laws against poisonous foods and medicines, to run a social security program, to ensure the availability of healthcare to all its citizens, I'm not ignoring the wrongs government can do - that's simply ludicrous to say. If I argue for there to be a police force that investigates murders, am I thereby ignoring the terrible harms of the Nazi SS and KGB? Of course not.
The 'powerful government' you fear is best reigned in by a healthy democracy, not by battling democratic government itself, creating a vacuum that would return us to the gilded age, when the average wage in America was $10,000 adjusted for inflation, and masses barely were able to (and often were not) live in shanty conditions, because that met the short-term, short-sighted benefits of those with power - in the private sector, unelected.
As I said you are clearly extremely ideologically indoctrinated, blinding you.
Note that you were unable to offer any direct argument against the case for healthcare, and could only offer a misguided slippery slope that healthcare causes unlimited tyranny.
Gov't-provided healthcare may or may not be a good thing, for any number of reasons (I'd also argue it's probalby going to be inefficient, but argument's pretty much been played out here already, so why bother), but why is it a right, as Mr. Stark suggests? Should I be able to just demand the doctor treat me, regardless of my refusal to pay him? That version of rights for some amounts to slavery for others.
this rhetoric is the left wing equivalent of "democrats want to fail in iraq" or calling them defeatist. Anybody who has used the term defeatist has no right to be criticizing Stark.
I dunno, the constitution calls for you to be protected from foreign invasion, thereby giving you the 'right' to that, even though it means someone has to serve you and deliver that right, forced by the government as needed. The extremely overwrought hyperbole of your argument, and the inherent extremism in is (healthcare=Ferraris) reflects that you are arguing from a highly ideological, and not any practical, point of view.
As for inefficiency - the idea that the private sector is so much more efficient is exaggerated by those on the right. It is, for many things; we want a largely 'private' sector, for providing goods and services - but if you can not be ideological for a minute, you would see in hisotry many examples of perfectly reasonable efficient government service - and for many things, government provides them better than the private sector could.
Why aren't the 'private sector' troops in Iraq, which outnumber the military, more efficient costing less than the 'inefficient government' troops, instead of costing 6 to 9 times as much? Why does Social Security have a 3% overhead when it's estimated that if privatized, that overhead would triple? Why has the government been perfectly able to deliver power in a variety of places around the US?
While the private sector has some ability to be 'efficient', it also has incentives that are against efficiency and against the public interest. Again, look at our healthcare costs today; the bloated private sector makes American pay a fortune for medical care, far more than other nations, and that also has a corrupting influence on our political system. The private sector is interested in paying off the government for non-competitive contracts, for overpriced contracts, they're interested in monopoly where they can get it, etc.
The classic stories about government inefficiency, the $600 hammers for the military, are really stories about the *private* contractors who sell to the government, and the corruption caused when their high profits allow the political donations that get such overpriced contracts approved.
You need to look at healthcare rationally, not in some ideological fantasyland where it's the same as Ferraris, and decide what would work best for the American people.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Some of you in here are far more insulting and see nothing wrong with it, unless the other side does it, then it's being "freaked out."
I don't imagine you'll comprehend that though because in your little world it's seems that it's only the GOP at fault while the D's are merely speaking truth to power to deflect the onslught of the vast right-wing conspiracy. imo, THAT'S being freaked out. It's a sort of paranoia that can't even be taught to someone. They just have to have it naturally and you most certainly have it in spades.
Hey, you are a fine calendar boy for not insulting people, TLC. Here's another of your posts not insulting anyone, responding to someone who pointed out your error:
Tell us more about how not to insult people, you clearly know quite a bit on the topic. Oh, and can you let us know the problems with hypocrisy, too?
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Partisan acrimony, most us in the USA are tired of it.
One should expect the level & type of rhetoric used in Washington by our polititions to be well above what one see's here. Perhaps if it was, the rhetoric and tactics used here would improve. They make for poor examples in Washington these days. To many partisan hacks, too few logical and reasoned statemen. Are low approval ratings really a surprise?
You can make your point without demonizing your opponent (a noted problem in P&N). At various times we had the caliber of polititions who knew this, and who were much better spoken.
If Washington remains a cesspool of crude outlandish chrages, half-truths and where demonization of an oponnet is common place, it's unlike political discourse across the USA in general will improve. Bombastic language tends to drown out reasonable discourse where ideas and persuasion are what we really need.
To lionize or applaude this guy for his juvenille outburst is misguided. Or demonstrates a penchant for low standards.
Fern
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Don't play the victim with me. You don't hesitate to dish out your own insults and you do it quite frequently.
Besides, I was not talking about insulting each other in here, which is so common-place it's gotten to the point of boredom. I was speaking about those who are insulting politicians (and say, generals) and people like Stark who are doing it in what it perceived as a rather unhinged and inglorious manner.
But if you support him doing that, I understand completely. Makes perfect sense.
I see you take zero responsibility for your behavior, no surprise there.
I do not 'insult' people with any general insults; I do criticize specific things, such as bad logic, excessive ideology in argument, lack of concern for others, etc.
You can't find a post from me calling someone a 'douche' or, for that matter, a 'pedantic ass' (you can find me saying pedantic without the 'ass'), much less someone who's right.
But continue the baseless, false statements.
It could be worse, the moderators do help with many of the attacks. You can't really complain about it when you are one of those doing it, though.
Oh, poor Patreaus - the ad about him was providing useful, accurate info, other than the unfortunate play on his name, which did still have a point to it, too.
What's unhinged are the policies Bush has that actually kill so many - not the criticisms of those policies. IMO, Bush is very callous about the lives his war affects.
If I support him standing up to the president who does these wrong things - it does make perfect sense. We need more Starks.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
"The always vapid Pabster...."
"That's because you are immoral."
"You forgot to include something to say in your drivel."
"I can't remember the last Pabster post that wasn't wrong or a lie."
Need I go on? There's plenty more demonstrating your often falsely accusatory and general insults. Apparently what you see in others you fail to see in yourself. Maybe that's the problem with you?
At least I'm not trying to pretend that I don't insult people in here and deny what can be looked up with a simple search function.
Yes, those criticisms are still linked to the person's statements, not the person generally - if someone posts something I see as immoral, you can't discuss that without saying you think it's immoral.
Note in your examples - you don't see any of the general 'insults' that are basically "jerk"; they are all specifically about the content not the person. The comments are vapid. The comments are drivel. The comments are wrong or a lie. The closest I come is the immoral comment; it's hard to say the person's statements are immoral without it being about the person who said them.
As for 'falsely accusatory', you fail to show any of that in my comments, making your remark, well, falsely accusatory.
So, my point stands, and you are not in much position, as someone who admits to the general personal attacks and insults that I don't, to throw stones.
Note in your examples - you don't see any of the general 'insults' that are basically "jerk"; they are all specifically about the content not the person. The comments are vapid. The comments are drivel. The comments are wrong or a lie. The closest I come is the immoral comment; it's hard to say the person's statements are immoral without it being about the person who said them.
As for 'falsely accusatory', you fail to show any of that in my comments, making your remark, well, falsely accusatory.
So, my point stands, and you are not in much position, as someone who admits to the general personal attacks and insults that I don't, to throw stones.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter