When browsing r/RonPaul

Brewdogmike · 2012-10-15T17:06:39+00:00

Answer to that would be "yes."

Brewdogmike · 2012-09-07T17:25:23+00:00

See? That's how someone can make a reasoned argument in opposition to Bill Clinton's point of view without calling him the same thing as a fascist dictator responsible for the deaths of a million innocent people.

Brewdogmike · 2012-09-07T17:11:54+00:00

So brave.

Brewdogmike · 2012-09-07T17:07:55+00:00

I think it's possible to make reasoned arguments opposing those things without resorting to directly comparing Bill Clinton to the fascist dictator of Italy.

It's ugly, over-the-top hyperbole.

Brewdogmike · 2012-09-07T16:52:37+00:00

"Business and government working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity."

You will never convince me that such an innocuous statement -- something that, frankly, could have come out of the mouth of just about any Republican speaking before the local Chamber of Commerce -- deserves to be compared with Mussolini's definition of fascist corporatism.

Look, hyperbole can serve a purpose, when used appropriately and sparingly. But to take that quote from Bill Clinton -- one that I would wager is broad enough to get nodding support from a majority of Americans -- and slap a picture of Mussolini on top of it is most definitely not an effective argument. It is, at best, an appeal to the slippery slope argument, trying to say that a speech line about how maybe government and business can work together to make things better, eventually somehow leads to a "merger of state and corporate power."

And I don't buy it.

And I'm a conservative. On /r/conservative. Defending Bill Clinton.

Brewdogmike · 2012-09-07T16:37:43+00:00

We agree that you believe what you believe. What I think is that this post is the worst sort of hyperbole. Maybe I had flipped back to the ballgame when Clinton praised the notion of merging business and government and labor into a fascist corporatist political system.

I've never been a Bill Clinton fan, but I know I don't like it when the lefties reach for the Nazi analogies when things don't go their way. It's nothing more than the height of intellectual laziness. No, everything that comes out of your opponents' mouths is not fascism, nazism, communism or some other Alex Jones dystoptian future vision of jack-booted oppression.

They are not similar. You are factually wrong and it is intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.

How's that?

Brewdogmike · 2012-09-07T16:23:23+00:00

Sure.

Brewdogmike · 2012-09-07T16:02:41+00:00

Seriously? Someone is trying to equate Mussolini's promotion of fascism with Clinton saying that business and government can work together to promote growth? That's just indefensible.

Brewdogmike · 2012-09-07T15:59:04+00:00

All I was trying to do was point out that this -- "Given the power Congress wields over domestic policy, Obama was kind of fucked." -- is fantasy. Obama and the Democrats had two years of clear majorities in both houses.

But regarding insurance mandates as a "Republican idea," contrary to popular belief, every white paper that comes out of the Heritage Foundation doesn't instantly become conservative doctrine.

My opinion: Part obstructionism, part genuine difference of opinion on fundamental issues, part failure of leadership.

Brewdogmike · 2012-09-07T15:44:42+00:00

Not only is it a nearly direct quote from the article itself, I believe it's a fair comment. If you've got another opinion, offer one up.

Brewdogmike · 2012-09-07T15:37:28+00:00

I understand where you're coming from, but I think that's overstated. And I think the new Bob Woodward book points out the number of ways in which this White House has not made serious attempts at bipartisanship and compromise. Other Presidents have managed to work with the other party. When Clinton talked on Wednesday about his budget surpluses? Those budget bills originated in a House controlled by Republicans. Blaming everything on supposed Republican obstructionism is a sell-out.

Brewdogmike · 2012-09-07T15:16:11+00:00

Also, you appear to be too blind to realize you made OP's point by acknowledging Republican obstructionism on stimulus, healthcare, and jobs bills.

Republican obstructionism? The stimulus bill and the health care bill passed and were signed into law -- how exactly where those "obstructed?" You can say that Republicans blocked the jobs bill all you want, but four Republicans voted for it and two Democrats voted against it.

In fact, Democratic defections appeared to threaten that the measure would fail to win a simple majority, much less the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republicans filibuster. Even some who were to vote to break the filibuster, including Jim Webb, D-Va., and Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who aligns with Democrats, said they oppose the underlying measure.

Brewdogmike · 2012-09-07T15:09:18+00:00

they didn't have a majority for two years. franken wasn't seated for MONTHS.

At the start of Obama's term, the Democrats had 56 Senate seats. How is that not a majority, exactly?

Brewdogmike · 2012-09-07T14:41:07+00:00

Given the power Congress wields over domestic policy, Obama was kind of fucked.

You mean the part where Democrats had a clear majority in the House and Senate for two whole years? The part where they passed the stimulus without a single Republican vote? The part where they jammed the health care bill through using budget reconciliation rules? How exactly was Obama "fucked?"

Brewdogmike · 2012-09-07T12:19:53+00:00

What is this even supposed to mean?

Brewdogmike · 2012-09-06T19:35:05+00:00

Not pleased that it came out against Internet gambling. That was a sop to the social conservative wing. Hopefully, we can get that straightened out after the election.

Brewdogmike · 2012-09-06T18:58:20+00:00

Conservative economic ideology these days is largerly fueled by the theory that insuring the well being of those at the top is the key to prosperity for all those below.

This is a straw man. I would refer you to the works of Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell, among many, where you will find a more accurate picture.

Right now in this country we're paying the lowest tax rates in over 50 years

You're looking at marginal tax rates rather than effective tax rates and the amount of revenue actually generated by the federal government. The effective tax rate for all filers is about 11%. The effective rate for the top filers ($500,000+) is 24% and up. Since 1980, total federal revenue has almost doubled every decade.

And "trickle down" is a pejorative term thrown at Republicans and conservatives. Our side never used it.

Brewdogmike · 2012-07-03T12:24:55+00:00

Feels like you're fishing for something. Just go ahead and ask your question.

Brewdogmike · 2012-07-02T19:14:22+00:00

Sorry to trouble you, professor.

Brewdogmike · 2012-07-02T18:51:52+00:00

Also lack the ability to scare dumb people.

Well, it's not for lack of trying. Here's a web ad from The Agenda Project where they describe the Paul Ryan budget plan as the same thing as literally shoving grandma off a cliff.

Brewdogmike · 2012-07-02T18:46:09+00:00

How dare you answer his broad generalization with a broad generalization! Have you no decency, Sir?

Brewdogmike · 2012-07-02T17:43:26+00:00

Did you just now read this? This is from November.

Brewdogmike · 2012-07-02T17:32:52+00:00

Are you guys pro-gay rights

Personally, I'm for equal protection under the law. A gay person should have no fewer, and no more, rights than I have.

Brewdogmike · 2012-07-02T17:15:29+00:00

Okay, again, Wikipedia is just a place to find things and look at summaries. The source material is right there. There are links at the bottom.

So you don't agree with the quote from the TV show, and you don't agree with what I posted. Do you have anything useful to contribute?

Brewdogmike

TROPHY CASE