Let’s Not Be Civil

Moderator: Super Moderators

SETIsLady
Pirate
Posts: 19872
Joined: 04-14-2003 08:52 PM

Let’s Not Be Civil

Post by SETIsLady » 04-18-2011 01:22 PM

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 17, 2011
Last week, President Obama offered a spirited defense of his party’s values — in effect, of the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society. Immediately thereafter, as always happens when Democrats take a stand, the civility police came out in force. The president, we were told, was being too partisan; he needs to treat his opponents with respect; he should have lunch with them, and work out a consensus.

That’s a bad idea. Equally important, it’s an undemocratic idea.

Let’s review the story so far.

Two weeks ago, House Republicans released their big budget proposal, selling it to credulous pundits as a statement of necessity, not ideology — a document telling America What Must Be Done.

But it was, in fact, a deeply partisan document, which you might have guessed from the opening sentence: “Where the president has failed, House Republicans will lead.” It hyped the danger of deficits, yet even on its own (not at all credible) accounting, spending cuts were used mainly to pay for tax cuts rather than deficit reduction. The transparent and obvious goal was to use deficit fears to impose a vision of small government and low taxes, especially on the wealthy.

Snip....

Now, Republicans claim that last year’s midterms gave them a mandate for the vision embodied in their budget. But last year the G.O.P. ran against what it called the “massive Medicare cuts” contained in the health reform law. How, then, can the election have provided a mandate for a plan that not only would preserve all of those cuts, but would go on, over time, to dismantle Medicare completely?


More

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/18/opini ... ugman.html

Krugman nailed it in this opinion piece.

rumike
Pirate
Posts: 2462
Joined: 04-27-2008 11:10 PM

Post by rumike » 04-18-2011 02:52 PM

Republicans have been taking advantage of Dems' (and Libs') kindheartedness and proclivity to compromise for far too long. It's time we got realistic and played hardball with them.

Sure, it would be nice if the GOP would legitimately try to govern by reaching consensus and compromise, but I'd also like to ride unicorns, eat rainbows, and be so happy I have bluebirds flying out of my ass. But that ain't gonna' happen.

Post-partisan? Whatevs.
Anchors Aweigh!

Saharaka
Pirate
Posts: 777
Joined: 07-03-2003 06:05 PM

Post by Saharaka » 04-18-2011 08:06 PM

rumike wrote: Republicans have been taking advantage of Dems' (and Libs') kindheartedness and proclivity to compromise for far too long. It's time we got realistic and played hardball with them.

Sure, it would be nice if the GOP would legitimately try to govern by reaching consensus and compromise, but I'd also like to ride unicorns, eat rainbows, and be so happy I have bluebirds flying out of my ass. But that ain't gonna' happen.

Post-partisan? Whatevs.


:)
Creature of the desert

"Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing plaid with stripes comes easy."

SETIsLady
Pirate
Posts: 19872
Joined: 04-14-2003 08:52 PM

Post by SETIsLady » 04-18-2011 08:12 PM

Not in the mood to sing kumbaya Mike, yeah me either ;)

Cherry Kelly
Pirate
Posts: 12851
Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
Contact:

Post by Cherry Kelly » 04-19-2011 09:29 AM

HUH - it's undemocratic to work with both major parties?

That is like saying we should live under dictatorship from whatever party controls congress.

SETIsLady
Pirate
Posts: 19872
Joined: 04-14-2003 08:52 PM

Post by SETIsLady » 04-19-2011 10:19 AM

Cherry Kelly wrote: HUH - it's undemocratic to work with both major parties?

That is like saying we should live under dictatorship from whatever party controls congress.
Well I think you need to tell that to the GOP.

Cherry Kelly
Pirate
Posts: 12851
Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
Contact:

Post by Cherry Kelly » 04-19-2011 11:55 AM

Seti - tell both parties -- this is politics - and you need to make it clear to both sides --

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 04-19-2011 12:31 PM

Leftists encouraging each other to act like remorseless thugs? Rationalizing brutality in service of the revolution?

Inconceivable.

Hero of the Democrats:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/09 ... -off-.html

SETIsLady
Pirate
Posts: 19872
Joined: 04-14-2003 08:52 PM

Post by SETIsLady » 04-19-2011 01:02 PM

Forced into dragging out an article from 2009 that you already posted here to distracted from this thread HB. Not surprising :rolleyes:

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 04-19-2011 01:37 PM

Well, how about a little Engels?
And the victorious party [in a revolution] must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorsh ... roletariat

Don't get all caught up in the cannibalism thing.

SETIsLady
Pirate
Posts: 19872
Joined: 04-14-2003 08:52 PM

Post by SETIsLady » 04-19-2011 01:40 PM

I am sorry HB what does that have to do with this thread ? Did you read the article I posted do you have anything to say about it or are you just going to try and distract like usual ?

Here is a wikipedia description for you.

Troll (Internet)
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
Last edited by SETIsLady on 04-19-2011 01:43 PM, edited 1 time in total.

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 04-19-2011 01:46 PM

Well, I'm not interested in advocating for your article so much as explaining it, so I guess that's "trolling" to you.

Sorry. Try to expand your understanding a little bit.

SETIsLady
Pirate
Posts: 19872
Joined: 04-14-2003 08:52 PM

Post by SETIsLady » 04-19-2011 01:50 PM

:rolleyes:

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 04-19-2011 01:55 PM

I know, I know...that's impossible.

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 04-19-2011 02:10 PM

Ok ok, I did read your Wikipedia link. (I love Wikipedia!) I was particularly struck by this section:
Application of the term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem strategy to discredit an opposing position by attacking its proponent. Calling someone a troll makes a negative assumption about that person's motives.

Post Reply

Return to “Politics and Government 2010-2013”