(12-19-2012 05:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (12-19-2012 04:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: (12-19-2012 03:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (12-19-2012 03:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (12-19-2012 12:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Yes, please compare our economic slump and "propaganda" to pre-Holocaust Germany, they're ssssooooo similar.
Until I'm carting around wheel barrows of money and seeing gov't posters and advertisements blaming a minority for that, I'm going to go about making more realistic, and less absurd comparisons.
That's when it is too late. Even the Nazis did not not go from 0 to 60 in one swell foop. And you are kind of mixing 1923 and 1936.
Yes, we are in an economic slump. Who is the minority being blamed? Republicans. Who will be blamed when we go over the economic cliff?
Yes, comparing the blaming of the Jews and other mainly ethnic minoriry groups for Germany's economic woes post-WWII is the same as laying blame to a political party that was involved in creating policy that helped hurt the economy.
I honestly can't believe I just read that. Apples to oranges.
There are a variety of reasons why the economy is where it is at, and I believe the majority of them did not originate with either party, and to the extent that their are political contributions to the economy, I hardly believe that it would be fair or blame one without yoking it to the other.
By the tone of your response above, it appears that you believe laying blame is justified.
Rick, I agree with the first paragraph from above. But I actually don't believe laying blame to one group, political or not, is correct, and I realize now it comes of that way. I was more trying to say that blaming someone that had a hand in the actions leading up to the downturn doesn't seem strange or unwarranted.
IMO, Dems are guilty of Clinton repealing part of Glass-steagell creating the massive banks that utilized CDOs that came crashing down. Reps are guilty of Bush pushing for two unfounded wars. And then there are the banks themselves that utilized these incredibly complicated CDOs that didn't really have any utilization. And then there are a whole host of other issues we could get in to, but I have a feeling this is not the right time to get into this.
Anyways, I'm sorry that it came across that way. I try my hardest to stay fair in my judgements and to see both sides of the story. I do fall more often to the left, especially on social issues, but I understand and, sometimes agree, with those on the right regarding fiscal policy.
Understand, and sorry if I came across overly preachy. I probably come across fairly conservative, and that would be close to correct, but I dislike where the country is now because it's polarized and stereotyping and prejudice is as rampant now (both ways) as it was in the past, just couched in different terms, and directed in politically correct directions.
With regard to our liberties, I am very much atuned to what is happening in Venezuela, where my wife was born. As I mentioned before, it is the oldest South American democracy, and they went from a majority middle class nation (or voting demographic, either way works) in the 1960's and 1970's due to oil, to a predominantly poor country with a huge influx of population into Caracas.
The first thing Chavez did on assuming power, was to convene a Constitutional Congress and throw out the old consitution, changing the document wholesale, and eliminating term limitations that would have had him out of office for at least one term already, as I understand it.
He nationalized industries (including the PDVSA, the oil company, which is now a poorly run shell of its former self), confiscated private property and generally has presided over a steadily worsening economy and a soaring crime rate. It's my understanding that you are much safer traveling to Columbia now then Venezuela, and that's a 180 degree shift.
He also has taken control of the majority of the media and press outlets in the country (another amendment we protect here).
Tocqueville had interesting things to say about democracy in the 19th century, but one point, paraphrased greatly, is that democracy works up to the point where people realize they can vote themselves money (his quote was directed more at legislators realizing they could win votes this way). My contention is that democracy does not work well without a strong middle class (i.e., those vested in a stable system).
The United States has been stable for a long period of time, and hopefully will be for some time to come. But it is not a given that it will remain that way indefinitely.
From that standpoint, attacks on the constitution, direct or through slippery slope progression, are things that some of us fear.
My involvement in this discussion is solely based on that premise. I'm 'liberal' in some regards in ways that would surprise a few on this board (hence my problem with the stereotyping the media does in constructing public debate - it seems they do it because they don't have the intellectual honesty, or perhaps care to spend the time to do things otherwise - maybe they think the general public's attention span is too short and entertainment driven to take in nuanced detail - I suspect they are right. But it ought to infuriate everyone who knows better).
For a democracy to survive, it needs to focus on doing things that will stabilize and enlarge the middle class. That is a difficult proposition in an age of globalization. (I deleted a long section here as this is too long, and it gets depressing) But suffice it to say that restricting individual liberties to maybe address a very, very small percentage of gun related deaths doesn't seem productive or properly focused.
/
OT: Newtown Tragedy and Gun Control
