A Canadian Perspective on the Mid Terms

[HeyYou]

BS or no.... Doesn't particular matter who he is, he makes some valid points.

 

I think his major point is: The november elections were not a vote FOR republican policies, they were a vote AGAINST democratic policies. He is also not the first to point this out. (nor do I think he is the third, or even the fourth.....) Multiple news organizations here in the states have said pretty much the same thing, and not all of them were simply mouthpieces for the conservative right.

 

Try reading the message, disregard the messenger...... Try debating his points.

[Harbringe]

Here's the standard definitions of the political spectrum as taught by all Universities including the conservative ones like Cambridge , Oxford , Harvard , you tell me where right of center is . Within what does it fit.

 

Far Left - Left Wing - Center Left - Center - Center Right - Right Wing - Far Right

Radica Left Radical Center Radical Right (sub groups)

 

Communism - Social Democracy - Liberalism - Centrism - Conservatism - Reactionism - Fascism

 

BTW. I ascribe to the Horseshoe Theory of the political spectrum if anyone is interested , it never the less uses the exact same definitions.

 

If I give no credit to the Sun News and dismiss NYT then my perspective is my own and is not dependent on their perspective . I dont need to choose either one or adhere to a particular perspective to be able to make up my own mind , but that's what its all about, making someone choose a side to fit a particular narrative made by the other , but the problem is that for those who may argue against the points it is presented in such a demogogic manner that your automatically trapped and nothing you say will be able to carry anything.

 

@ Hey You

 

Here's the thing about demagoguery , if you allow for its points parsing out what you dont like or may be BS , you give it a legitmacy or rationality that it doesn't deserve . It is made rational and if you debate against it , then where does that leave the other person , obviously in the irrational and the only way you can appear to be rational is by moving to that side your debating against. Its a trap , its designed to do that , anyone opposite its views would be a fool to debate , an utter fool.

 

We can do the same (parse) with Stalin , Hitler , Pol Pot , Mussolini , not everything they said was BS , they had some valid points ,should we do that , no because its designed to trap you , to be poison to your mind .

 

@ Kvnchrist

 

nothing in particular but how many Americans can say that when it comes to their TV's or every magazine rack or most anything to do with media is 80%+ Canadian , because thats what it is for us Canadians when it comes to you Americans , its everywhere , kinda hard (almost impossible) not to have some kind of perspective on everything American , the word one would use is inundated . Plus you guys are so big compared to us if we are not careful we could get side swiped by some action you do .

[HeyYou]

Ah, so, the messenger, and the medium he chose, makes the message illegitimate, therefore, you don't want to argue against his points. Right. Got it.

 

Personally, regardless of the above points, the message is still relevant, and in a lot of cases, accurate. I do not agree with your assessment.

[Aurielius]

Though I expected liberal eloquence in defense of policies instead, another sample of the twice repeated talking points.

Sigh....I guess being trapped in an ideological mind set preempts the ability to discuss the actual points.

Revisiting the critic instead of the polices...since the policies might require a more adroit defense than self righteous anger.

So be it, thanks for proving my point about the concept of liberal tolerance.

[Aurielius]

Ah, so, the messenger, and the medium he chose, makes the message illegitimate, therefore, you don't want to argue against his points. Right. Got it.

 

Personally, regardless of the above points, the message is still relevant, and in a lot of cases, accurate. I do not agree with your assessment.

On tpoic:

I've read a senate minority proposal to shift the enrollment to medicare, while dismantling about two thirds of the Affordable Health Care Act.

Since in the long run either version is a tax, why not utilize the infrastructure of Medicare which works at least, during the transition?

There has to be some way to dismantle the worst aspects of Obama Care without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[kvnchrist]

 

 

@ Kvnchrist

 

nothing in particular but how many Americans can say that when it comes to their TV's or every magazine rack or most anything to do with media is 80%+ Canadian , because thats what it is for us Canadians when it comes to you Americans , its everywhere , kinda hard (almost impossible) not to have some kind of perspective on everything American , the word one would use is inundated . Plus you guys are so big compared to us if we are not careful we could get side swiped by some action you do .

 

 

 

Well, I'm truly sorry if the issues you have are overwelmed by the news items down here, but couldn't that tide be stemmed by people not frequenting those media sources who concentrate on American news. I don't look at size when it come the the measure of anything unless it's a firearm pointed in my dirrection.

 

People are people and their measure is the quality of their charactor, not their ability to influence others. I don't care who this guy is or what he has to say about America. Almost every politican down here starts out their drivile with these words, "I think the American people'...." and they know about as much as people from other countries knw about us, because they don't take the time, nor do they care to. Politicans know polls and from there they spin the findings to suit their own agenda.

 

There are busy bodies everywhere in the world and I would wager money that these people referance the issues and the policies of others, not to help others, but to help themselves. I don't know about this guy. He may or may not be correct about what he stated. but like I said, I have not read it and don't care to. I've seen too many people in this world try to remain relivant by pointing their fingers at others.

[HeyYou]

 

Ah, so, the messenger, and the medium he chose, makes the message illegitimate, therefore, you don't want to argue against his points. Right. Got it.

 

Personally, regardless of the above points, the message is still relevant, and in a lot of cases, accurate. I do not agree with your assessment.

On tpoic:

I've read a senate minority proposal to shift the enrollment to medicare, while dismantling about two thirds of the Affordable Health Care Act.

Since in the long run either version is a tax, why not utilize the infrastructure of Medicare which works at least, during the transition?

There has to be some way to dismantle the worst aspects of Obama Care without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

We are already paying the medicare tax.... so it's not like we would be out anything additional. So far as I am concerned, roll them over into medicare, and then LEAVE them there..... use the money that would have gone to subsidies to augment medicare. People get coverage, they are in a HUGE pool, they aren't 'require' to carry insurance for issues they will NEVER have to worry about.... (A young guy having maternity insurance? Seriously???) Everybody wins, more folks get insured.

[kvnchrist]

 

 

Ah, so, the messenger, and the medium he chose, makes the message illegitimate, therefore, you don't want to argue against his points. Right. Got it.

 

Personally, regardless of the above points, the message is still relevant, and in a lot of cases, accurate. I do not agree with your assessment.

On tpoic:

I've read a senate minority proposal to shift the enrollment to medicare, while dismantling about two thirds of the Affordable Health Care Act.

Since in the long run either version is a tax, why not utilize the infrastructure of Medicare which works at least, during the transition?

There has to be some way to dismantle the worst aspects of Obama Care without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

We are already paying the medicare tax.... so it's not like we would be out anything additional. So far as I am concerned, roll them over into medicare, and then LEAVE them there..... use the money that would have gone to subsidies to augment medicare. People get coverage, they are in a HUGE pool, they aren't 'require' to carry insurance for issues they will NEVER have to worry about.... (A young guy having maternity insurance? Seriously???) Everybody wins, more folks get insured.

 

 

 

Didn't they take money out of medicare to pay for Obamacare? This entire thing was a huge attempt at moving wealth around. If they had have openly talked about it they wouldn't have had to do this behind the scenes crap. The whole thing has been tainted so bad, I don't think any of it will be paletable. They should scrap the whole thing and start from scratch. They should also get advice from countries who have unversal health care, so they can learn from mistakes that have already been corrected.

 

These guys who made this law wanted to do something, anything just to get something done and screwed the pooch in the process. You don't rush into something that will effect so many people and you damned sure don't exempt yourself while toughting it's benefits.

[Aurielius]

As a footnote to this discussion .....another Senate seat gained in Louisiana from Mary Landrieu in the run off election. That makes a total of nine seats gained in the senate from the mid terms.

[kvnchrist]

As a footnote to this discussion .....another Senate seat gained in Louisiana from Mary Landrieu in the run off election. That makes a total of nine seats gained in the senate from the mid terms.

And the teeter-totter flips yet again. I wonder if the public will benefit any this time?