...

That's a Rayism: outstandinger

McCabe has been showing a lot of offense this game.

Knit-picking the details doesn't really soften the point. The point is, the democrats felt threatened by the possibility of SCOTUS appointments by Presidents in their last year and tried to argue the merits of their opposition. The democrats now should, ideally ( :rolleyes: ), be able to admit they can relate to the Republican's position. The reality is that the President is obligated to nominate, and the Senate is obligated to confirm OR deny. If the Senate denies every nominee from here until Dec. 31, they are within their right. And I disagree with McConnell's statement as presented, obviously without context. Well, it's politics. There's no question the democrats try and maximize whatever leverage circumstances provide. The Republicans should do the same, but rarely do. Frankly, had the Republicans been less wishy-washy over the years, and played politics like the blood-sport it is, perhaps BY NOW, our politics would be more civil; sort of like an unspoken M.A.D.-style understanding.

Perhaps this is already up-thread, but the democrats actually passed a resolution in 1960. American Thinker So, between Schumer holding a PC 9 years ago and the 1960 resolution, the precedence for such a stand-off has been set, and set by the democrats as far as recent memory goes.

I think Obama will start with a moderate, gambling, correctly, the moderate will get voted down. I think the next nominee is more left of moderate, with the gamble being the Republicans vote down that one. By the time the third nominee rolls around, Obama and crew will be gambling that the Republicans will be under enough pressure to confirm whomever he throws up there, so, he nominates a full blown leftist.

I don't think I like the ending of the latest Mad Max. He should have stayed with them.

Great thought. What socialist country has done for itself what ours did in just over a century? NONE! Look at all of them now. Even China suffers under its tightly controlled system. Innovation is slow there, and they rely on copying our innovations to help themselves innovate. Doesn't the success of capitalism have any merit? It should. The times are different, of course, and tweaking is required. But our system was spectacularly successful, far and beyond any system that preceded it or has come since. I didn't say, imply, or advocate anything like you're portraying it.

No! You're going the wrong way. "Unrestrained capitalism" did not get us into this mess. The mess, such as it is, is a product of the political class trying to keep a block of voters voting for them. Imagine, if you will, we could put it in reverse and back up to 1945, the day after VJ Day. What if, then, we took the Tuskegee Airmen, paraded them around the country, and used them and their story to quell deep racism. What if, afterwards, we didn't need to go through the Civil Rights era as it happened because, thanks to the Tuskegee Airmen and a proper education campaign by the government, people "got it" and things improved smoothly. Imagine, now, no need for a massive welfare state such as we have, no need for the race-hustlers, no real racial tensions. Instead, you have that additional population earning incomes just like the Caucasians. There is no "they" or "them" anymore, think of it as an additional 15%-20% income earners. You need additional industry to support that 15%-20%, that 15%-20% is spending their money, supporting the industry and paying 15%-20% in taxes. They vote Democrat or Republican based on candidates platforms. Right now, this 15%-20% is kept in poverty, the economy is restrained so as not to open up an additional 15%-20% of the market, these folks are forced to rely on the system, and you know the draw is more than 15%-20% because of government bloat. Democrats coddle this segment as a means of securing their vote. The education is subpar intentionally. THIS IS WHAT IS INEXCUSABLE...not capitalism.

Thanks for the opportunity. It is truly a gift. I shall embrace it. I think our role globally for the next 50 years hinges on the elections this year. That's no great prediction, though, of course. At one point I was concerned about China and their objectives, but I'm not so sure China wants a world-domination role right now, even if we were weakened even more than we already are. I think China is seeing that, regardless of the political system, you still have to baby-sit the planet when you're a global power. They have not been immune to terrorism, they have not been immune to economic swings. I almost think they prefer a strong USA for now. I think China still wants to get it right within their own borders before stepping out and attempting to take responsibility for the world. I think Russia could still be problematic, but the prime issue will be radical Islamic terrorism. I don't believe Russia or China wants to deal with that on their own, and I think both nations fully realize the threat radical Islamic terrorism poses. I do think Russia is ready to take advantage of any distractions radical Islamic terrorism might create globally. I think the Russian government believes WWII never quite ended. Frankly, I think the West is waiting for the USA to regain its stature, I think the West is hoping for a strong President who will lead the way toward a solution for radical Islamic terrorism. As you might guess, the election will influence this particular part of the world's future. Economically, if the USA suffers, so does the rest of the world. The world's economic system is based on trade. We are, obviously, quite influential in that, and if our economy fails, the global ripple will be significant. If the next President is perceived as one who will weaken our economy (further) expect to see various new experiments in global economics instigated from other parts of the world. These would be an attempt to isolate our economy so the rest of the world's economy could survive without us being a significant factor. Of course, that could possibly have a positive effect in that we would essentially become an isolationist nation (again) and we could adjust our own economy accordingly. Taking this further, over time, if the latter were the case, we would eventually be in a position similar to where we were before WWI. This would play nicely in the Norway-type model if that were to be successful. And we'd all sing "Kumbaya". So, I think short term, regardless of the election, the status quo rules. Longer out, 20+ years, totally depends on the election. Oh, I think if the USA is perceived as continually weak, and become isolationist, or, at least, retract our military, the EU will rear its head, reform, and create a military force on its own. The West might have its own modern enlightenment if we stay weak.

Fine, you are focused on capitalism. It's a buzzword. Have you ever investigated fraud and abuse of the do-good social systems in place? The capitalist stuff is overt and simple, by comparison. Capitalism overseen by unscrupulous characters is bad. Those same unscrupulous people will be at the helm of socialism. Don't kid yourself into thinking the hearts and minds of the leaders, or the laziness of the electorate, will change because the system changes. Indeed, we're seeing these problems precisely because capitalism worked so well, the people became intellectually lazy, and morally soft. I would say what you're focused on is maybe 25% of the problems in this country. A huge portion of the problems are government and government program related, and the abuse thereof both within and without. There is more than one bogeyman. I didn't knock heads. You did. And you continue to muddy up a good thread. Will you shut up, please? They will. But it's a team system. WWI and WWII taught us that. Those other countries simply don't have the resources we have. There's no getting around that. It's wishful thinking to believe otherwise.

I said it. The greater diversity means less agreement on what is "in the best interest" and how to approach the matter, since the distribution is a product of government intervention. Less agreement means more grid-lock. More diversification means larger government needing more resources to manage that diversification. It's happening right now, no need to imagine it.

Well, then, let me suggest something to you: you say "I feel that it's corporate abuse of extreme capitalism..."; the question is do you know? This is the premise of my response that started all of this. You are a scientist - you should know accurate conclusions aren't made on FEEL. And, excuse me for calling you out on this, it's not an attack or anything, just...hope. Anyway, the "feel" business comes from manipulation. I suggest digging deeply, very deeply, into stuff like this before coming to a conclusion. You will find layers and layers of manipulation guiding you away from real data and genuinely objective discourse. Google or Yahoo any term and it will take pages and pages of search results before you start finding stuff that isn't biased (and it IS typically biased left - that is a reality that is not debatable). ...or not. I'm here to tell you that there is a lot of misinformation and manipulation out there. Do you mind being manipulated and using false data to base your conclusions on? Then fine. If the idea pisses you off, then you have, well, the rest of your life to catch up. I will always eventually post "good stuff" given the chance. But I am no less prone to that than I am posting so-called garbage. There is a sh&t ton of insults thrown at the right and at the country-in-general here that deserves no less than the full force of my sarcasm. Deal with my responses, or be fair in your barn-storming and call them out, too, so I don't come in and make you sad. Wheat/chaff. Do you not see that our military is necessary to maintain balance globally? Do you not like Western culture? If you don't appreciate and contribute to the preservation of our military, you are quite literally asking for the eventual full-frontal attack on all of the things that make a country like Norway possible in the first place. I never understood this point of view. Nature teaches us that the strong survive, and that there are always, eventually, power struggles at the top. Humans, in the aggregate, are not beyond and above nature and her rules.

I was just mulling in my head whether Kane is capable of being shamed. That's what the suspension is supposed to accomplish. I like Kane, and have defended his antics, but, he needs to fall head-over-heels in love, get married, and have a kid really fast. It's pretty clear his life-style is eventually going to kick him in the ass.

To those who don't like discussing realties, or possible realities, skip this post. Let's say either China or Russia goes crazy. They decide to invade the West. Either country can wage a 2:1 per PERSON (not just per solider) invasion and the invading country's population would suffer barely a dent. An invader would use man-to-man tactics because that would prevent the defending military from using anything but the softest of conventional arms lest they wipe out their defenders in the process. So, being real here, the militaries of countries like Norway are small and largely insignificant. Who does the West rely on for real defense, even with Obama in office? Us. Our military makes us very different from those small Western nations. We need it. They need it. This reality changes so many dynamics: political, economic, social, philosophical. There is nothing that compares in those countries, they simply don't have the on-going internal debate that affects the politics, nor do they have the economic variances a large and capable military presents. What I dislike, so much, and find childish, are the retorts to this reality that dismiss the need for a large, capable military. World history tells us otherwise. If world history is trumped by feel-good-ism, then, whatever.

We already have socialism working here. Lots of it. The problem is that it's failing, as you note. I'm not opposed to safety nets and government intervention in certain aspects of life. The left in this country has looked to the European model since before the 1940's, and have been the primary (note the word "primary" and not "sole" [as opposed to "soul"]) architects of the socialist-style systems in place. These are the systems that are failing. I could write all day on this. I don't understand where many of you get the time to debate on the internetz, and do it properly with supporting data and well-considered reason (which is to say, these are things I don't see in threads like this...but that's another argument with d4rk). Suffice to say, the left has abused the good-will the right (and these are black and white terms for the sake of keeping the discuss simple, obviously it's more complex) and have made these systems HIGHLY political. The education system, for example, and in my view, has been politicized to the nth degree. Education is a social enterprise. The welfare system is a mess, and, in my opinion, a means to encourage a certain life-philosophy, and, ultimately, yield a certain vote. Unlike you, I don't want to pay more taxes. I pay enough taxes. I write checks to the Feds and the State quarterly and see exactly how much I have to pay. It's too much. In a country our size, with our resources (natural, economic, brain-power, ingenuity, and spirit), the people should not have to pay nearly half of our income to the government. All of that said, the Norway model is nice to consider, but fitting that into our country and its circumstances would be wedging a square peg into a circular hole. The economies are vastly different. Since our economy is so diversified, there would need to be that much more regulation and oversight - ballooning and already too-large government. The cost to support this kind of regulation, because of its size and diversification, would be enormous. Norway is a small country with a small population. Without doing an hour's worth of research to back up my position, I submit that it's far easier to manage and educate a tiny population like that. A smaller population in a small area share similar experiences and therefore common-thought is much easier to achieve. There is simply far less instances of variability. This all makes moving the people toward a common goal far easier to accomplish. And, this excludes the argument on whether it's moral to educate people in a way that they are all common with one-another (which I do not think it is). Here, the life-experiences of folks here in Buffalo vary greatly from those who live on the southern coast of Florida. And because the population is so large, and the people are so spread out over a geography that naturally affects the life-experiences, and hence, the thought-processes, of the citizenship, there is a greater variance in thought. When you have a greater variance in thought, there is less an opportunity to please all people, so the government, like it does now, will always be working against the "best interests" of a significant number of the population. Another example of the above (the first being my view that taxes are already too high), is that I don't see why a new system of government is necessary (socialist democracy) when the system originally put in place for this country worked so well, clearly, for so long. That is until the socialist elements started creeping in. I would prefer we back up, institute the original vision, but, of course, with the appropriate updates that address the social and philosophical revelations that we've had since the founding.

Who defends Norway?

I did read it. Ann Jones has a very specific view of our society, hardly unbiased at all. So, it's pretty challenging to make it through an article that is so biased...it's just difficult to continue reading all of the way through. Ignoring the American-bashing, it reads like a brochure touting a system without any critical analysis. Anyway, maybe you didn't notice, be she sets up lots of straw-dogs in describing our situation here, and then uses those to compare to Norway. No mention that Norway has a population of only 5 million and landmass of only 148,718 square miles. These two factors alone change the dynamic drastically (the USA has 318.9 million and 3.806 million square miles). If you're putting this article on the table as a serious argument for the further socialization of our country, I don't know what to say that wouldn't make d4rk burst into flames. I mean, the kind of reasoning in that article is the QVC of political intellectualism.

Muddy muddy muddy! Attack attack attack! Okay, let's muddy up the thread. You started this. So, if this thread is supposed to be "no holds barred"...what does that mean? When you're playing goal, before the game do you tell the other team "slapshots are okay, but not too hard, okay?" "Please no two-on-one breaks, they're difficult to handle."

So, what, are you this thread's policeman? You're banning me from the thread? No? Take it up with a moderator, then. YOU are going to muddy it up by wasting pages and pages trying to shout me out of it, not me. I have a different point of view than you - deal with it. Put your money where your mouth is, grow up yourself, and tolerate a dissenting viewpoint no matter how uncomfortable it is to you. That's what you preach, right? No wonder you think the thread is "civil" - it's because you won't let anyone who you disagree with participate. Oh, absolutely. Our country is backwards and we need to adopt the European model. Of course.

It's civil because there are pages and pages of groupthink and varying levels of complimentary conformity. Very enlightening indeed. And, FWIW, you didn't even give me a chance to get rolling before you attacked me. Very civil and tolerant. Your make English professors proud.

Garbage? This entire thread is garbage. It makes me sad to come in here. This thread is all about: A) The Republicans are always wrong, always the bad guy. Always. B) The democrats are the baseline. What the Republicans do is measured against the "standard" set by the democrats. C) The leftists in this thread can insult and besmirch the right, often times with little jabs and innuendos, and no one says anything. A right-leaning person taking the same jabs at the left? You're the f*&king devil and unfair. D) If your "tolerance, fairness, and balance" is biased towards the democrats, you're okay, no one says anything. If it's biased toward the Republicans, you are the devil (see item C).

That's right, I hate, HATE, all of that. Good argument. Thanks for the discussion. Pancakes?

Wassamattah? Sanders is a self-avowed socialist. His platform is based on socialism. You support him, you support socialism (or worse). It's pretty cut and dry. Unless it's cool to be a socialist now and square to be against it? Am I not with the hip crowd again?

You're a socialist? Oh...so disappointing.

DID WE WIN? I WAS AWAY. WAS IT A GOOD GAME? EVERYONE HAPPY?