The “gay agenda” today is fundamentally conservative

[Stardreamer]

Of course none of them have been put to the test -- every time there's a major change in economic behavior, politicians change all the rules.

The only way to actually gather enough data to really get some economic rules understood would be to go ten or twenty years with no changes in laws or regulation that impinge on things economic.

Or somehow split our timeline in two, and use one reality as a laboratory.....

BINGO that's exactly the point.

 

[Kulindahr]

BINGO that's exactly the point.

That's what I meant a couple of posts ago.

It's why an econ prof I knew said that calling economics the "dismal science" was so true -- life was just dismal for anyone trying to turn it into a science.

 

[JayHawk]

Or somehow split our timeline in two, and use one reality as a laboratory.....

Well we can start here in JUb because evidently there are multiple alternate realities people are living in 'round here

 

[Kulindahr]

Then why are today's conservatives fundamentally anti-gay? Did you read what Lindsay Graham said Sunday re: DADT? Or is he not representative of US-style conservativism?

If I tell you that everything in the oven is hot, do you conclude that everything hot is in the oven?

 

[bike10]

Funny how its the religious right that speaks of the so called Gay Agenda.

 

[construct]

We're not discussing any connection with the agenda of the republican party. That's a mistake that you and others in this thread continue to make. What's being discussed is that the LGBT agenda has become more conservative, which is easily provable by looking at the priorities of the movement in the 70s and the priorities of the movement now. You need to separate the POLITICAL from the philosophical, because they're too separate things.

The mistake that you and other in this thread continue to make is failure to recognize that the gay agenda can only be advanced through political action. If the philosophy is not applied through political action, it has no function at all. Thus the philosophical is connected to the POLITICAL precisely because they are the same thing. However, national economic policy is in no way connected with the gay agenda, and it certainly does not justify alignment with the American party which has as part of its agenda working to thwart the gay agenda and which happens to be the one that has the reputation of being the more conservative of the two. (I fear that actually pronouncing the name of that party would prove to be an insuperable distraction.)

 

[T-Rexx]

Are you really stupid enough to believe Obama has any intention of balancing the budget?

Yes, I am.

Need I remind you that the debt commission has recommended the most conservative restructuring of american spending since the New Deal? Cuts that have been attacked by liberals and applauded by conservatives.

I think you mean the most liberal restructuring of American spending since the New Deal. The plan was developed by a commission appointed by the president (a Democrat). Historically, only liberals have balanced budgets. And it is being equally attacked by Republicans as well as Democrats.

YOU need to face up to the reality; Obama has every intention of continuing the deficit spending of his predecessor and more. The liberals in congress are intent on continuing it as well. All you need to do is take a look at Obama's budget, a budget HIS WHITE HOUSE WROTE, to understand this. Liberals don't value fiscal responsibility. They value spending more money than ever on programs we can't afford, and refusing to make cuts to programs we already have to bring those costs down.

This makes no sense. You choose not to believe that Obama's budget plan is honest, then you insist that the plan proposed by the White House Debt Commission is a wonderfully honest "conservative" document!

You seem to be making an emotional argument here - "I hate Obama and liberals so much that I know any balanced budget plan they come up with will be a lie. I know they don't really want to balance the budget. I know that all the budget numbers have been doctored over the past 60 years to show that liberals balance budgets and conservatives don't - but I know the opposite is true."

You're free to believe anything you want. But emotional arguments are not valid in debate.

All the firms on Wall Street's numbers added up too. Their accountants, and their outside accountants swore everything was hunky dory. But it wasn't. As Kuli said, no president since Kennedy has actually balanced the budget, because they're manipulating the numbers to make it look like they are. You cite the CBO; in case you didn't know, the CBO crunches those numbers according to the accounting rules set up by the government. If the government says a number is supposed to be counted one way, even if its dishonest and deceiving, that's how the CBO counts it. Or to put it another way, the government can make the numbers say anything they want even if they don't.

If you believe everyone's numbers are lies, then it is not possible for you to discuss this issue.

So don't.

Sounds very well reasoned but it also sounds like class warfare translated into economic theory.

Capitalism is class warfare. That's the whole point of capitalism.

 

[Supersix]

Capitalism is class warfare. That's the whole point of capitalism.

Oy vey. Go live in a country where people really are suppressed their entire lives, where they're little more than slaves, then reconsider that statement.

 

[T-Rexx]

^ You mean that because Latin America has so many oppressed poor it is not capitalist?

What about India? Is it not capitalist?

Nigeria? South Africa? Kenya? Egypt? These are not capitalist countries?

When capitalism becomes unbalanced, with too much wealth in the control of too few individuals, it does result in widespread suffering. But that is what governments are supposed to prevent.

 

[Supersix]

I do not buy your description of the problem, because it isn't a problem, it's life. And people in poverty do not always stay in poverty, many work and bring themselves out of it. I am an example of that. I cannot speak to other countries, I am talking about the USA. Where we go to great lengths to ensure equal opportunities, but NOT EQUAL OUTCOMES, however much the left dreams of that. No two people are the same, so there's no possible way of equal outcomes. Sorry, life isn't always fair. And I agree that if things get too extreme, then we might need government intervention, just not too much. A better balance is all I mean.

 

[JB3]

Yes, I am.

[comment removed by moderator]

I think you mean the most liberal restructuring of American spending since the New Deal. The plan was developed by a commission appointed by the president (a Democrat). Historically, only liberals have balanced budgets. And it is being equally attacked by Republicans as well as Democrats.

Nope. No liberal restructuring would ever allow for the massive overhaul of social security that the commission has recommended.

This makes no sense. You choose not to believe that Obama's budget plan is honest, then you insist that the plan proposed by the White House Debt Commission is a wonderfully honest "conservative" document!

Because the Obama budget is dishonest, as were Bush's, and Clinton's and so on. The commission has not proposed a budget. They have proposed where spending needs to be cut.

You seem to be making an emotional argument here - "I hate Obama and liberals so much that I know any balanced budget plan they come up with will be a lie. I know they don't really want to balance the budget. I know that all the budget numbers have been doctored over the past 60 years to show that liberals balance budgets and conservatives don't - but I know the opposite is true."

You're free to believe anything you want. But emotional arguments are not valid in debate.

Then why do you keep posting?

The government has been fudging the numbers for well on 40 years.

If you believe everyone's numbers are lies, then it is not possible for you to discuss this issue.

So don't.

It most certainly is. The government makes the rules for how it counts its revenue and spending. Those rules do not follow established accounting procedures for every other financial or corporate entity on the face of the earth. You keep trying to say that only liberals balance the budget, when the government's finances themselves are fudged. You see where this discussion is headed?

 

[JB3]

Then why are today's conservatives fundamentally anti-gay? Did you read what Lindsay Graham said Sunday re: DADT? Or is he not representative of US-style conservativism?

Two separate things. You're talking about reactionary politicians. The article is talking about conservatism as a philosophy.

 

[JB3]

The mistake that you and other in this thread continue to make is failure to recognize that the gay agenda can only be advanced through political action. If the philosophy is not applied through political action, it has no function at all. Thus the philosophical is connected to the POLITICAL precisely because they are the same thing. However, national economic policy is in no way connected with the gay agenda, and it certainly does not justify alignment with the American party which has as part of its agenda working to thwart the gay agenda and which happens to be the one that has the reputation of being the more conservative of the two. (I fear that actually pronouncing the name of that party would prove to be an insuperable distraction.)

Eh, you still miss the point.

 

[construct]

Eh, you still miss the point.

Surely you're not saying that national economic policy is not political, are you?

 

[andysayshi]

McCain might not look so bad in drag compared to some of the drag queens I have seen so far in life.

 

[Kulindahr]

Funny how its the religious right that speaks of the so called Gay Agenda.

Sometimes that term makes me giggle -- I'm associated with a church where an "Agenda" is a guide to worship, that sits up front near or by the altar.....

===

===

===

===

===

 

[Kulindahr]

This makes no sense. You choose not to believe that Obama's budget plan is honest, then you insist that the plan proposed by the White House Debt Commission is a wonderfully honest "conservative" document!

In some ways it is conservative -- it tries to spread the 'pain' around, doesn't drastically attack anything that will really drastically change things... those are conservative.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ You mean that because Latin America has so many oppressed poor it is not capitalist?

No, it isn't capitalist. It's working on getting there, but mostly it's still feudal plutocrat in nature.

It doesn't matter what the point of it is, it matters how it is used in the real world.

The point of the Hindenburg was to give people a nice balloon ride.

Capitalism is supposed to be used to generate optimum societal wealth, foster competition, and encourage class mobility. These things happen to some extent, but it can also easily fall prey to the clutches of the wealthy for their own designs if the system isn't regulated properly.

Any system can fall into the clutches of the wealthy. Capitalism is just better at generating wealthy people.

Having noted that, it's a point worth bringing up again: if wealth belongs to people because they earned it, what about unearned wealth?

 

[Kulindahr]

Surely you're not saying that national economic policy is not political, are you?

Are all the people making that policy gay?

 

[construct]

Are all the people making that policy gay?

Well, um, no. There is no connection (or very, very little) between the gay agenda and any particular economic policy. I think I said that somewhere or other. Since that is the case, gay economic conservatives should consider where they are most likely to effect change. There is already a significant constituency for blue dog Democrats and not so much for pro-gay Republicans. I think one might have a better chance of moving the Democrats toward embracing more conservative economic positions than of moving the Republicans toward embracing more libertarian social positions.