Disney and Universal score waivers to offer limited health plans for part-timers

djDaemon said:
I wasn't suggesting those ideals aren't useful or beneficial or important or whatever. I'm just pointing out that the act of extolling them doesn't necessarily mean they're worthy of that praise. That's not remotely the same as saying "freedom sucks" or however you misinterpreted it.

I agree with the notion that just because something is extolled doesn't mean its useful, beneficial or important. And I could see it being used with respect to popular movies or tv shows. But it just strikes me as odd (and scary) to use it with respect to freedom, democracy and capitalism.

Short term? Probably not.

Long term? Eh. We'll see, I guess.

Unfortunately, politicians are all about the short term. Closest thing we get to the long term is the 6 year election cycle of senators.

Two against one. I guess you do believe in majority rules after all.

This is where I find this topic so amusing. We have so many who believe that they are smarter than everybody else. Then they link to that unbiased New York Times ;) to give us an article for two economist. Alan S Binder is the shortsighted economist that trumpeted the "Cash for Clunkers." Of course they don't tell you that in the article. And Mark Zandi???

This is the chief economist who trumpted Keynesian policies from the beginning. Do we really need to explain the controversy surrounding Keynesian economics? He was cited in article after article (mostly because he claims he was a republican) well before Obama came to office.

Citing these two as proof of stimulus would parallel citing Jack Kevorkian as proof that doctors have settled the assisted suicide debate.

If dl had his way, you would fail that voting test...as would anybody who gets their information from the New York Times and believes their propaganda does not trump fact...

But it just strikes me as odd (and scary) to use it with respect to freedom, democracy and capitalism.

Odd and scary were the best you could come up with? ;) Joking aside, I appreciate your restraint.

Jeff said:

You're right, because the mainstream has become divisive and polarized,while Obama has become remarkably centrist. In which case I criticizeboth the mainstream as well as Obama.

Would you care to enlighten us with which policies he has trumpeted you find middle of the road so we can get an idea of what your definition of "centrist" is?

On a board where those who trumpet small government are vigorously attacked while the guy who is not certain "freedom" is actually useful or beneficial is treated with kid gloves...I think some perspective might be in order.

The fact that he can simultaneously have a negative approval rating and no poll indicates there's a Republican that can beat him illustrates how screwed up our culture really is.

I'm guessing somebody has not seen those Romney polls.

Somehow, Aamilj, I'm certain you could find polls that suggest "the new McCain" isn't nearly conservative enough...LOL!

Obama has been way more "center" than left - and I've got a big bunch of "progressives" who are pretty peeved he turned out as moderate as he did...

And I respectfully ask you the same question gator. List us some of those policies he has championed, that you find centrist. Specifically those the last two years when he had a unilateral Congress to grant his every wish. I'll start...he did not close Gitmo as promised, he basically continued Bush's war in Afganistan. Two positions he clearly lied about during the campaign. Two centrist positions none-the-less. On the home front, I can't think of any, but maybe we don't agree on what the center is?

This is not a trick question. It is just to guage what you guys think is centrist. Once we can narrow that down, the discussion can go somewhere.

For example, daemon proudly labels himself a liberal in this very thread...then we find out that his definition of liberal includes questioning the virtues of freedom, vote tests, etc. I'm not certain you can get farther left than that. The only condemnation of his comments about freedom has come from 2 (I think) of us on the right.

I'm more than willing to learn and admit I am wrong. But I sincerley believe that the vast majority in our country think Obama is too far to the left. So it interests me from what perspective you guys justify your opinion that he is a centrist. Why...?

I'm not saying I agree with these, but here are a few of the ones I've heard from my more lefty friends. Some of them apply to Congress as well as Obama:

• Continuing the war in Afghanistan/increasing troop levels
• Bailouts for large banks with no strings attached, who still gave enormous bonuses to the same executives that helped them fail
• Removing the public option from the health care bill
• Pushing through a health care bill that requires people by law to give yet more money to health insurance companies (you'll note the insurance companies that were foaming at the mouth about the health care bill suddenly quieted down once the public option was removed, giving conservatives one less platform to stand on)
• Extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy
• Championing a net "neutrality" bill that only applies to landlines and not the increasingly popular wireless internet access

Again I'm not commenting on whether any of those things are good or bad (OK I guess with public option I kinda did), just providing a list of things I've read/heard people complain about, since you asked. :)

I'm more than willing to learn and admit I am wrong.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ahem.

...he did not close Gitmo as promised, he basically continued Bush's war in Afganistan.

I just read an article this morning talking about the things he promised to do in his first term. These 2 are things he promised and hasn't as of yet delivered on. And as Bird mentioned, many of those things were amended to appease the other side.

Otherwise, the writer had him pegged at having accomplished 85% of what he stated he would do if elected in his first term. By the end of his 2nd year no less.

Not that I'm an Obama supporter, but either side can always find ways of saying what the other side isn't doing.

Who cares what he "championed" or campaigned on? His actions, what he has actually pushed for and passed (or acted on in terms of executive powers), have been compromises. The list above is a good start.

bird:

Thanks for putting a list up. I do not blame you for not wanting to agree with those. This side of Afghanistan/Gitmo...and taxes (which he was forced to do) the rest of that list is a choice between a far left position or a very far left position. Government bailouts, government health care, internet censorship, etc. Choosing between degrees among pletheras of massive government intervention is not a centrist position by most political standards. Some on those list could be used to show Bush was a centrist though. No doubt he supported liberal spending/bailout proposals.

Maybe a better way to define his centrism is to look at the people he surrounds himself with, court nominations, etc. Maybe that is what they are talking about when they define him as centrist?

We are just looking at Obama's list of supposed balancing right/centrist positions. When looked at in light of him suing Arizona over immigration, taking over GM, bailing out Freddie and Fannie, pushing cap and trade,. his plan to take over student loans, health care, internet, fairness doctrine, banking/insurance (arguable)...

I think we see how reasonable people might assume or even conclude he is not a centrist. Otherwise there should be a nice list of conservative proposals we could point to that could counteract all the leftist proposals in my list, and yours above.

Not trying to be a smart alec here. I know he has said we need to make tough choices on spending cuts. Has he ever proposed a single spending cut for any government program? I honeslty do not know the answer to that. I assume there might be some military cuts in there. Anybody have that information? You would think a centrist would propose spending cuts...?

Would like to thank his "liberal-ish" friends ;) for providing the info I couldn't since I was busy driving to a warmer climate to celebrate the holiday with family.

On a side (coaster-related) note - hoping to get to Santa's Wonderland this year....finally! :)

Oh, and as a P.S.- Why does Aamilj get to change the criteria for proclaiming Obama "too liberal" whenever the facts are presented to refute the claim. Is it campaign promises, friends and appointees, actual legislation and policies enacted....I'd have to say RESULTS (i.e., the last of the three) provide us the clearest picture of where Obama has taken us politically...

Whydoes Aamilj get to change the criteria for proclaiming Obama "tooliberal" whenever the facts are presented to refute the claim.

That is not a fair statement and you know it. There not only are no facts to refute, you have not had the decency to offer your own reasons for making such a generalized assumption. You and Jeff have made a broad generalization that Obama is a centrist, while neither you have offered up a definition or examples that could lead us to ascertain where you are coming from. This seems an odd generalization since back in July...

The poll(PDF) from Democracy Corps finds that 55 percent of likely votersbelieve that the word "socialist" describes the president either "well"or "very wel

I've proudly and directly offered numerous examples of why I think he is a leftist. For you to critique my examples while refusing to offer any of your own is disingenuous. I asked you to provide examples so we could see what your definition of centrist is. Neither of you have. Bird stepped up for you, but he wisley refused to back it up...since the weaknesses in that list are glaring.

I'll say it again. On a forum where those who call for smaller government are taken to task regularly while the guy who doesn't see the virtue of freedom is treated with kid gloves...a bit of perspective is in order.

You can define centrist in any way you choose, that is your right and I respect that. But those of us with a different worldview have a right to see it our way too. The difference here is I have offered examples of his extreme leftist positions that nobody has attacked yet. Unless you believe suing Arizona is a centrist action, etc. I offered them as reasons for my opinion. As far as I can tell to this moment, you have no real reasons to think he is a centrist.

Other than the elementary school form of disagreement where "it is because I say it is."

No, I'd say Bill is right on. Your argument tends to slide around to whatever most closely suits the climate of the conversation. It's a long-standing pattern with you.

Aamilj, I guess if your definition of a 'leftist' is simply 'big government,' then you'll always win, because the government will *never* be small enough to your liking. That's the beauty of being either a libertarian or a socialist: Since they know damn well that the purest, loveliest form of their ideal system will never be implemented in America, they can always play the victim, shake their respective canes at Washington, and tell America to git offa their lawn. As a libertarian, you will never be happy. Ever.

All of the bullet points I listed (except maybe the Afghan war) support big businesses of some type, and that is NOT a leftist position, no matter how much you try to dress it up as "government intrusion." Large banks, health insurance companies, telecom providers benefit greatly from Obama's and the Democratic Congress's actions. And even tax cuts for personal income -- apparently! -- helps businesses, since as you told me in another thread, LLC's are allowed to mix personal and business finances.

And I don't even believe that big corporations are inherently evil or that helping out small businesses is bad; but I've been reading post after post of you portraying Obama as a "leftist" and felt the need to speak up.

I apologize that I even bring these things up, because I'll warn you now I have neither the passion nor the interest to do copious amounts of writing and Googling on political topics, which is why it even took me this long to say anything. I get enough political discourse elsewhere in my life, and I'd prefer not to get into it on a site dedicated to one of my pleasurable hobbies. (Which probably raises the question of why I've continued reading this thread at all. ;))

To Ammilj - I feel the need to apologize to a degree and offer some sort of olive branch to the effect that I called you out individually. I named you individually because none of the other conservatives seem to be taking the position that Obama as president is that far left of center, not to attack you personally (my arguments are never intended to be personal, but they are intended to encourage thinking). I have found that my own opinions are more malleable that I ever would have thought in my teens or twenties...

I take the position that in the *most-attended* election in US history, Obama won by a fair margin. I also take the position that if the Democrats had been more vocal, more strident, and more liberal, that they could have kept the enormous turnout from '08 and maintained a much better position in Congress. I could be wrong, we'll never have to opportunity to know what COULD have happened.

I guess rather than just tagging myself "a liberal", I'd like to stake the claim that I'm liberal on social issues, conservative on fiscal issues, and favor smaller government in terms of intrusion into personal decisions. I think gun laws are best decided regionally. I think there are some areas where the government needs to take more of a leadership role (environmental issues among them), but that doesn't mean that the free market is a failure at *everything*....it does mean (to me at least) that the free market isn't necessarily the BEST at everything either...

I'd like to stake the claim that I'm liberal on social issues, conservative on fiscal issues, and favor smaller government in terms of intrusion into personal decisions.

If you asked me to describe myself, I would say exactly the same. Which is why we need perspective. It would seem to most, and probably you and I ourselves, that we do not agree on much politically, yet when asked to describe ourselves...we would use the exact same words. Communication is useless without perspective.

That is why I believe it important to give examples of what positions you or I see as centrist. There is a good chance that word has a different meaning for you than it does me.

Therefore, I throw out Arizona, GM, healthcare, student loans, Fannie/Freddy, insurance/finance, etc...so you and EVERYBODY gets a clear picture of what I mean when I say centrist. It is open, honest, and there to discuss/debate/criticize. You, and particularly Jeff, have offered nothing in kind. You call him centrist, offer nothing to back your opinions, and consider the debate/discussion closed. Which is perfectly within your right to do...but do not expect reasonable minds to blindly accept your definition as the pure/true meaning.

This is not about right and wrong. It is about perspective. We disagree on a lot gator, but I always appreciate that your tone is civil.

bird:

I appreciate that you are the only person who gave examples of what you believe are centrist positions. By doing so, we now have perspective on you and I (we are the only two who bothered). Now, we obviously disagree by a large margin on what does and does not constitute a centrist position. But there is clarity as to where you and I stand (I should not leave out daemon...as his earlier contributions make it clear where he stands too).

Now we can argue back and forth about who's position is superior...lord knows we could. But that is not the point. From now on when you our I use the term centrist, nobody will have to guess where we are coming from.

Which brings us full circle to Gonch's contribution about whether the will of the majority should rule, or the will of the minority who believe they know better...

The key is what do the majority of American's think is centrist...? Unless you want to discuss whether or not the will of the majority is liberal or conservative in this country...which is an interesting topic.

Aamilj said:
The key is what do the majority of American's think is centrist...?

The answer to this question lies with one network in particular. I believe you know which one I'm referring to. They proclaim "fair and balanced", when there's no doubt they are a highly biased network. Even still, a solid majority of viewers actually believe it to be balanced, and they never take the time to fact check anything else.

All of the networks are that way to some extent, but I haven't seen them hiding behind slogans like "fair and balanced".

I tend to lie in the middle of the road, and I like to rely on facts and get "the big picture" before forming my opinions on things, and I find it difficult to do that when the "facts" are really just opinions, shouted by a guy on TV or radio.

Edit: guess I should finish my sentence before pushing the big button... derp.

I like to rely on facts and get "the big picture" before forming my opinions on things

You don't have to agree...but here are the rough facts (off the top of my head...feel free to fact check for absolutes).

The new census has us at about 307 million people in the country. On its best of best weeks Fox News averages about 3 million viewers (give or take 500K). You can add talk radio and a a couple papers (Wall Street Journal and New York Post come to mind) that slant conservative.

On the left you have ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, USA Today, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, (most major metropolitan newspapers). You could also look at polling data on all major news outlets to see what major political party reporters self-identify with. It is not even close. News providers are dominated by reporters with left political leanings.

*now opinioned-based stuff...

Taken as a whole, the ratings would suggest that those perceived liberal outlets have much greater influence than those on the right. You may disagree, but to paint a picture that Fox News somehow dominates and poisons the minds of the "stupid/uninformed" does not seem to jive with the numbers. Or at the very least there is a good argument to be made that that opinion is off base...or way too generalized.

I think a lot of us cannot agree what is a fact and what is an opinion...? I look at the news media on whole and realize that most have an agenda. In my opinion we would need another 2-3 Fox News type organizations just to break even with left in terms of what propaganda does and does not get to the public.

Anyhow, to nail it down to the public is misinformed because of Fox News is way too simplified in my best guess...based upon my interpretation of "the big picture."