Explaining Democrat Policy

[GenSeneca]

The Third Way

Quote:
"With the election of Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in Britain, it was widely perceived that social democracy was on the retreat in the Western world. The resultant adoption of Third Way ideology by many social democrats, and the subsequent electoral success of Third way advocates Clinton and Blair, has proved divisive within the broader social democratic" community.

From Wiki on Fascism:

Fascists argued that the implementation of their ideas into the economic sphere would represent a "third way", and they favoured corporatism and class collaboration.

And the plot thickens.

 

[GenSeneca]

I find it amusing that when it comes to calling McCain a flip flopper, or making fun of his age, or making fun of Bush's speech problems...liberals are out in full force...but when it comes to actually debating over cold hard facts, and solutions to problems...they are no where around. HHHHHMMMM what a mystery.

Lets see if I can make that silence a deafening roar:

There They Go Again!

When will the Washington insiders get it? Today, The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper reported about an earmark from Democratic Congressman Paul Kanjorski (PA), which the Department of Transportation (DOT) is actively opposing.

The earmark, from the 2005 transportation appropriation bill is for the construction of a $5.6 million parking garage next to…..the Kanjorski Center. The reason for the obstruction? It does not comply with federal rules, which state "only if they are connected to other public transportation facilities outside a business area with a population of 50,000 or more, or if it serves high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs) and public mass transportation passengers."

The DOT has taken issue with more than 20 of Mr. Kanjorski’s earmarks in the past several years, and now the local communities have problems with Kanjorski’s earmarks, because they often benefit groups associated with his family members.

To top it off, the "Kanjorski Center" which was to receive the $5.6 million parking garage currently stands empty. That’s right, no one occupies the building but Mr. Kanjorski feels it necessary to send your tax dollars to build a parking garage.

A "monument to me", an unused building, a parking lot, family connections, and a rules violation…No it’s not a Hollywood blockbuster….it’s the United States Congress.

Posted by Rep. John Campbell (07-09-2008, 03:18 PM) filed under Appropriations

Any Democrat voters care to defend this guy?
How about the Democrats disdain for parental consent:

Democrats Don’t Want to Vote on Parental Consent

The House of Representatives considered a bill last week (H.R. 6385) to regulate the enforcement of child abuse and neglect at residential treatment facilities at the federal government level—regulation which is already occurring at the state level. Republicans offered a Motion to Recommit (MTR)—a last chance measure for Republicans to make the bill better—which would have amended the bill to require that a covered treatment facility under the bill create a policy to ensure that parental consent is required before any prescription medication (including contraception), not previously disclosed in writing by such parents or legal guardians, may be dispensed to such child. This MTR put the Democrats in a tough position, as the Democrat Leadership didn’t want their Members to have to take a vote on requiring parental consent for contraceptives for teens.

It may be important to note that teenage pregnancy rates have declined to about 75 per 1,000, down from a 1990 peak of 117, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research center. According to a recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll, sixty-seven percent of parents support giving contraceptives to teen students. According to the poll, only 30 percent of parents were in favor of providing contraceptives without parental consent.

Posted by Sarah Makin (07-01-2008, 10:52 AM) filed under Life Issues and Abortion

And for everyone who thinks government having more control of our heathcare system is a good idea:

Medicare Spent $92 Million on Prescriptions from Dead Doctors

The Washington Post reports that medical suppliers billed Medicare for up to $92 million since 2000 for wheelchairs and home equipment that was prescribed by dead physicians. Since 2000, about 500,000 such fraudulent claims were honored by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at a total cost of between $60 million and $92 million.

Posted by Brad Watson (07-09-2008, 06:16 PM) filed under Budget

Did everyone get their "stimulus" check? Obama wants to send out another round of them at the cost of $20 billion... Any guess what the first round cost?

CBO: $268 Billion Deficit through First Nine Months of FY 2008

With one-quarter of the current fiscal year still remaining, CBO projects that the federal deficit for the first nine months of FY 2008 is $268 billion. This is more than double the federal deficit at this point in FY 2008 ($120 billion). Federal tax collections are down 1 percent and spending is up 6.4 percent so far this year, but CBO notes that outlays in June were reduced by $62 billion because of “calendar-related shifts and certain one-time shifts.” CBO also notes that $79 billion of the $148 billion increase in the deficit is attributable to tax rebates included in the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. Some private economists forecast that the final FY 2008 deficit may reach $500 billion, which would be the highest nominal federal deficit in U.S history.

Posted by Brad Watson (07-09-2008, 06:00 PM) filed under Budget

Lets call it $80 Billion... Obama's $20 Billion "round two" would be 25% of the original; my rebate was $600, divided by 4 is a whopping $150.

Sorry, no accusations of drug abuse, gay sex, gambling problems or similar attacks on character...

These are the issues facing America and all the blowhards are silent.

 

[GenSeneca]

If you have not seen this thread before, I suggest you start from the beginning and see what you have missed.

Bunz, I did not remember the total for domestic spending correctly, my appologies - its actually $3.8 million per second we spend domestically. I laid out the methodology and totals regarding Defense spending HERE and Domestic spending HERE.

--------------------------------------

Democrats love to spend - especially when they can blame it on Republicans:

Earmarks Gimmick on the House Floor Now

H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act (sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-NY), is scheduled to be considered on the House floor on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, subject to a closed rule (H.Res. 1476), allowing NO amendments.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except those regarding PAYGO and earmarks, waives all points of order against the bill itself—except the PAYGO rule—and allows the Chair to postpone consideration of the legislation at any time during its consideration. The rule allows one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

EARMARKS HEADS-UP: Totally unrelated to the credit card mandate legislation, this rule also allows the Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services to insert into the Congressional Record, at any time during the remainder of the second session of the 110th Congress, “such material as he may deem explanatory of defense authorization measures for the fiscal year 2009.”

This provision would give Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) the ability to insert the Joint Explanatory Statement for the Defense Authorization bill, including a list of earmarks, into the Congressional Record at any time this year (including after the November elections), rather than when the bill is actually considered (likely this week). Even if a statement is filed this week, as some reports indicate it might be, this provision would allow for an undefined number of changes after the election.

Some conservatives may be concerned that, not only will the earmarks not be in the legislative text of the Defense Authorization bill, but they may not even be revealed until after the November elections, and Members will have no ability to amend or strike them.

Posted by Paul Teller (09-23-2008, 11:16 AM) filed under Appropriations, Defense-Homeland Security, On the House Floor

Any Democrat voters want to defend this action of allowing earmarks to be stuffed into unrelated legislation, without debate or oversight, AFTER the legislation has been passed? Also read closely, the PAYGO rule is only in effect for the legislation - NOT for the earmarks which can be attached to the legislation after passage.

Here's an example of the Democrats ignoring their own PAYGO rules altogether, with the justification that the spending is vitally important:

Congress May Consider Minibus-CR Bill Next Week

With two weeks until the beginning of fiscal year 2009, the House has passed just one of the regular appropriations bills needed to fund the government next year, and has failed to send any of the twelve bills to the President for his signature. A continuing resolution will have to be enacted to keep the government running beyond September 30th of this year. Democrats reportedly plan to combine the Military Construction-Veterans, Homeland Security, and Defense Appropriations bills (which has not even been considered by the full committee), along with the continuing resolution probably lasting into mid-November, into one bill. The three FY 2009 regular appropriations bills would be 13.8 percent and 6.2 percent increases compared to last year respectively. Overall, the Democrat plan will increase spending through the appropriations process by $72 billion or 7.7 percent. To shutoff Republicans from being able to offer a Motion to Recommit, the FY 2008 House-passed Homeland Security bill (H.R. 2638) may be used as the vehicle.

Posted by Brad Watson (09-18-2008, 02:36 PM) filed under Budget

Thats your Democrat Congress - The most un-popular Congress in History.

Now, since its in the radar, onto the Credit Crisis:

Mortgage Crisis – All Roads Lead to Fannie and Freddie, and Congress.

With the talk of Washington and much of the Nation currently surrounding the looming financial crisis and the “bailout” package proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson, many Americans are rightly asking how we got in to this mess. While it is imperative that Congress take action to alleviate further problems in our economy, answering the “how we got here” question is essential because it will provide the necessary insight to know the right and wrong steps to take to remedy this crisis and avoid another one in the future.
While many Democrats are blaming “deregulation” for our housing and economic troubles, nothing could be further from the truth. Note that no real legislation or substantive examples are ever cited by Sen. Obama or other Democrat leaders when they blame the false demon of deregulation. They blame deregulation because the Democrats answer for virtually every calamity that befalls our nation is more federal regulation and intervention in the private sector. It is becoming clear that federal regulation and government mandates are the root problem (as they often are), not the solution. Read on to see why.

So what and who are the real culprits? According to numerous leading experts and a review of recent history, the very structure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are largely at fault in initiating and escalating this major economic market meltdown. Both Fannie and Freddie are unique entities known as government sponsored enterprises, GSEs in Washington-speak, and therefore get their charter and marching orders from Congress. So Congress, namely powerful House and Senate Democrat Members, has enabled the GSEs in their push for more “affordable housing” to buy up increasingly risky subprime mortgages, then bundle and sell these sub-par assets to investment banks. You see, Congress set numerical thresholds for the number of low income loans Fannie and Freddie must meet, which was in conflict with their obligation to shareholders to lend to more qualified buyers and ensure a profit.

Finding the Origins of the Mortgage Crisis. This Fox News piece reviews the recent history of Fannie and Freddie, and details Republican efforts as recent as 2005 to reign them in and avoid a future government bailout.

Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess. This recent Wall Street Journal article accurately accounts the foibles of the GSEs and congressional complicity in creating this situation. Of particular note is that those that championed the “affordable housing” mission of Fannie and Freddie, namely House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and his Senate counterpart Sen. Chris Dodd, are the primary negotiators on the bailout package with the Administration.

Illegal Immigrations to Blame? Believe it or not, there is compelling evidence that our historically lax immigration enforcement has also played a major role in worsening the mortgage crisis. Thisarticle by Michelle Malkin details the pattern of abuse in lending by banks to the nation’s largest illegal alien “sanctuaries.” This is yet another reason that we must enforce our border and immigration laws for the good of our country, our financial system, and the rule of law.

Posted by Rep. Dave Weldon (09-25-2008, 06:25 PM) filed under Government Oversight, On the House Floor

Well said Ronny...

 

[BigRob]

Brief point about earmarks.

With every actual bill comes a "conference report." Many earmarks are buried in the conference report as well, which many people do not think to look in, or even bother to read.

Bush actually tried to put an end to that. He said that all earmarks in the conference report should be ignored, and only the ones in the actual text of the legislation should be honored. To get around this Congress promptly wrote a line into the law that said the conference report should be considered the law as well.

Ending earmarks is a fine talking point, but in all practicality, it is not possible. The vast majority of earmarks are not even bad to begin with.

 

[GenSeneca]

The vast majority of earmarks are not even bad to begin with.

I think all earmarks are bad.

If its important enough to get funding, it should be able to stand up to legislative scrutiny and be made its own bill OR have similar earmarks all bundled into respective bills for consideration.

Legislation should not have the phrase "And for other purposes" attached to it but all legislation that contains earmarks does have that phrase. Farm bills shouldn't have earmarks for education and Education bills shouldn't contain earmarks for farm subsidies etc... Pretty radical thoughts about reform right there.

 

[BigRob]

I think all earmarks are bad.

If its important enough to get funding, it should be able to stand up to legislative scrutiny and be made its own bill OR have similar earmarks all bundled into respective bills for consideration.

Legislation should not have the phrase "And for other purposes" attached to it but all legislation that contains earmarks does have that phrase. Farm bills shouldn't have earmarks for education and Education bills shouldn't contain earmarks for farm subsidies etc... Pretty radical thoughts about reform right there.

Well, if you think about it, building a new military base somewhere is an earmark. Really any spending is an earmark. Also, the people who put them in are not always from the district they are earmarking the money for. Usually they all are laid out in plain English for people to read, but you just have to know where to look to actually see them, which is part of the problem.

Also, every earmark that passes today has technically "stood up to legislative scrutiny."

The reason many earmarks are tacked on to defense bills or unrelated bills is because those bills are basically guaranteed to pass. No one wants to be the guy who votes against funding the military because it has some earmarks attached to it, the majority of which are not even bad.

Wrong or right, that is how it is done. McCain cannot stop it if he wins. (Although hopefully he will win). To stop it he would be forced to veto every single bill for his entire term, and this is simply not realistic.

Also, you have to ask yourself what the earmarks really are for sometimes. Sometimes you have someone earmark $3,000,000 to study bear populations. On the surface this sounds moronic. But often times the reason for this is because the bear was endangered, and getting them off the list can open up new lands to drilling or something along those lines.

 

[Pandora]

Since the Democrats took control of Congress:

----------------------------------
Democrats and the PAYGO scam:

----------------------------------
The Pelosi Premuim:

----------------------------------
RSC's Budget School:

9 Trillion dollars in debt...

We need more CONSERVATIVES in Congress.

Those were all great. thank you!

Have you looked at the 2009 budget yet?

 

[Petunia]

Democrats - I refer to those in Washington, the ones I watch on C-Span telling me how much better they could run the country through the power of government. These people are dangerous to America in so many ways...

First, a little about Socialism: Socialism preys on the fact that there is no perfect system. Democratic Socialism points to, or creates, flaws in a democratic system of government to then exploit the weakness by injecting permanent government "solutions" in its place. These solutions often are far worse than the problem - so the Government must provide several more "Solutions" to fix the "Unintended Consequences" that resulted from the original.

Slowly but surely, like an infectious, parasitic disease, Socialism has been spreading through our body politic.

1. Mortgages. The current debacle over "predatory lenders": Democrats in Congress found that relatively few loans were being issued to upper lower class citizens and, using their preferred argument, said that "poor and minorities were hardest hit" by this inequity, making them victims of discrimination.

The Mortgage lenders argued it was a legitimate business practice to refuse loans based on projected long term ability to repay the debt. The Democrats pounced on the fact that loans to the lower classes were charged the highest rates while the upper classes received much lower rates, again claiming victimization.

The Lenders retorted by pointing out that the loans garnishing the highest rates were also the highest risk and historically more likely to be defaulted upon by the client. Defaulted loans cost the company a considerable amount of capital, which subjects the companies shareholders to lower rates of return on their investment, and nobody like to foreclose on a home.

Congress deemed it a discriminatory practice and threatened fines if more high risk loans were not granted. To avoid the fines, companies began issuing more of the high risk loans, with traditional high risk rates, and it wasn't long before some of these loans were being defaulted upon by the client and forced into foreclosure. Placed in this catch 22 by the government, the lenders were now forced back into Congress and asked to explain the explosion in defaulted loans.

Congress is again crying foul. Now these companies are "Predatory Lenders" and Democrats in Congress want the government to step in and purchase the debts. This allows the companies to continue issuing loans to high risk clients, without taking a direct risk in loss of revenue, and keeps freshly defaulted loans supplied to the government, at taxpayer expense. All the while manufacturing a negative view of these companies in public opinion.

Using this tactic of creating problems where there were none, as an excuse for greater governmental intervention, private lenders will be squeezed out of the mortgage lending business, like the buyout of Bear Stearns, while government slowly takes its place with bureaucratic agencies like HUD. Eventually, after the butchering of lenders reputation in the public and the Democrats railing about mounting losses to the taxpayer, the people will demand government takes over even more of the private mortgage lending.

Foreclosures in the private sector are something Democrats pretend to care about - because they can say the free market has failed when they set it up for failure. Democrats are never asked about the RECORD number of TAX foreclosures.... You owe money to a bank? Government will pay for you with taxpayer money. You owe money to the Government? HUD will be taking your home and selling it at auction.
Control, Redistribution, Dependency.

2. Taxes. Every single Democrat is pushing, as they always do, for higher taxes across the board. The newest vehicle for creating this heavy progressive tax resides in fears of Global Warming. The Democrats have not proposed any "solutions" to GW that didn't invovle massive new taxes and control in all areas of public life.... including a tax for those who wish to fire up the grill during the summer. Control through taxation.

3. The Death Tax/Estate Tax. Democrats are the biggest proponents of the death tax, insisting that its not only a necessity but also not "progressive" enough and should be raised. They openly admit in Congress that this is the best way to prevent the inheritance of wealth, which they argue is better served if redistributed. i.e. absorbed by the state. Failure to redistribute this wealth hits poor and minorities the hardest. Redistribution of Wealth.

4. Universal Healthcare. They started with the elderly, paraded them around as victims and demanded they be taken care of by the state. After that worked so well, they paraded out the children and got state sponsored care for them as well. Now the only segment of the population not covered is the middle group that already pays for the other two. They are the only group left and victimized by the most expensive, although the best, healhcare system in the world. So now the argument is, they should be covered as well, starting with the poor and minorities.

Democrats are best buddies with Trial lawyers - who sue doctors and hospitals out of business for a living - so one of the major causes for the cost of healthcare is not addressed by Democrats, frivolous and exorbitant lawsuits to healthcare providers. Around 80% of lawsuits are settled out of court, so lawyers have to do very little work to get a very big paycheck. The cost is then passed on from the hospital, or doctor, to the people under their care and the consumers split that bill. Allowing this practice to continue has served the Democrats intended purpose - to make healthcare something people want the Government to provide. Dependency.

5. Education. Higher education brings with it the associated costs, which have grown by as much as 17% a year. Colleges charge for their service based upon the capitalist principle of supply and demand. Democrats in government are always pushing for greater sums of money to be made available for those wishing to attend college.

Democrats have super saturated the market with the availability of government money, making the supply of money far greater than the demand. This imbalance allows the colleges to raise rates far more than necessary every year. The Democrats cry foul that the costs are growing so quickly and once again complain that poor and minorities are hardest hit, thus more government money must be made available to counter the inequity. This completes the illusion which has been repeated every election cycle in Congress.

Eventually the amount of revenue going to education will make it more cost effective for government to take over higher education altogether, in the socialist image of European Universities.
Dependency, Control, Indoctrination.

6. Urban Sprawl. Urban sprawl is the derogatory term bandied about by Democrats, meant to dissuade the decentralization of populations. Democrats like people crammed into cities where they are more dependent on the local government for transportation and other necessities. Allowing the spread of sprawl removes much needed revenue from the cities, with the poor and minorities hardest hit by this reduction. City dwellers are less likely to own property and property owners are more likely to vote Republican. Hence the concentration of Democrat districts in urban and coastal areas while the Republicans dominate the sub-urban and rural areas of the nation.
Consolidation of Power and Increased Dependency.
---------------------------------------------------
Everything the Democrats do has the effect of Consolidating and Centralizing Power away from individuals, Redistributing Wealth, Controlling the Population as well as creating new programs that expand the number people dependent on the government. Pure, unadulterated Socialism thats creeping up slowly.

Democrats have the uncanny ability to point to Republicans and make them out to be a force for evil and corruption. Never mind that Democrats outspend Republicans in earmarks by a 3-1 ratio... Don't let it bother you that Democrats are criminally indicted and found guilty - also in nearly a 3-1 ratio against Republicans. While the Democrats have the country watching out the window - looking at the Republicans for signs of Fascism, Democrats are sneaking an authoritarian Socialist State through the back door.

Giving Democrats a big ol pass when they fail, but insisting Republicans are thrown out, just makes things worse.... Just look at Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco, both were horribly inept leading up to and after the disaster in New Orleans but we all know Bush, 2000 miles away, is the one blamed for Katrina.

Before I'm written off as a Republican Cheerleader - the Republicans have a bad reputation and are watched under a microscope, all for good reason and that shouldn't change. However, Democrats should receive the same scrutiny we place on Republicans and both should be held to the same standard.

You officially are my hero.

 

[GenSeneca]

Really any spending is an earmark.

I guess so...

Also, every earmark that passes today has technically "stood up to legislative scrutiny."

I think that's disputable.... If each individual earmark went through the Bill process, I'd bet 90% or more would fail.

The reason many earmarks are tacked on to defense bills or unrelated bills is because those bills are basically guaranteed to pass.

With more than a 10 trillion dollar debt, that's not a good enough reason.
(Thats not counting the big Debt: SS alone has some 50 trillion in unfunded liabilities)

Wrong or right, that is how it is done.

It is wrong and needs to be done differently.

Do you not like the idea of bundling similar earmarks into their own bill for consideration?

 

[BigRob]

I think that's disputable.... If each individual earmark went through the Bill process, I'd bet 90% or more would fail.

I do not think 90% of them would fail because they are bad earmarks, but rather because 90% of all bills fail.

If every single earmark went through the entire legislative process, Congress would get even less done.

With more than a 10 trillion dollar debt, that's not a good enough reason.
(Thats not counting the big Debt: SS alone has some 50 trillion in unfunded liabilities)

It is wrong and needs to be done differently.

Do you not like the idea of bundling similar earmarks into their own bill for consideration?

I think that this would cause a whole host of new problems. Many earmarks are good and needed, but if they can only be passed with a bill of a similar area, they would simply never get passed.

Are you proposing having a bill (HR 9999) that is nothing but earmarks? I think this bill would be doomed to failure immediately given the reaction earmarks have during election years.

 

[GenSeneca]

Congress would get even less done.

Thats not necessarily a bad thing... considering much of what they do makes things worse.

Are you proposing having a bill (HR 9999) that is nothing but earmarks? I think this bill would be doomed to failure immediately given the reaction earmarks have during election years.

Not at all...

If you want federal money for your state to, for example, study bear population in hopes of removing them from the endangered species list, then bundle your earmark request with other state representatives making earmark requests for studying species on the endagered species list.

Am I making sense yet or is my eloquence still failing me?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Genseneca you have never made sense and this is no exception.

 

[top gun]

Genseneca you have never made sense and this is no exception.

You have to understand... his team of nit wits flew the plane into the mountain and now the few rich survivors that could afford parachutes don't want a better flight plan... they just want everybody to quit whining and buy them a new plane.

It was the plane's fault... the mountain 's fault... that old stand by Bill Clinton's fault... NO IT WAS YOUR FAULT REPUBLICANT'S. You had total 100% control for 6 of the last 7+ years. And now all you do is play spoiler by filibuster and veto.

LEAD-FOLLOW-OR GET OUT OF THE WAY! You can't lead, you won't follow so this election is all about getting George Bush & John McSame OUT OF THE WAY!

 

[GenSeneca]

You have to understand... his team of nit wits flew the plane into the mountain and now the few rich survivors that could afford parachutes don't want a better flight plan... they just want everybody to quit whining and buy them a new plane.

It was the plane's fault... the mountain 's fault... that old stand by Bill Clinton's fault... NO IT WAS YOUR FAULT REPUBLICANT'S. You had total 100% control for 6 of the last 7+ years. And now all you do is play spoiler by filibuster and veto.

LEAD-FOLLOW-OR GET OUT OF THE WAY! You can't lead, you won't follow so this election is all about getting George Bush & John McSame OUT OF THE WAY!

1. Ad hominem - attacking the personal instead of the argument. Nit-Witz.
2. Straw Man - The writer does not attack the argument that the opposition sets forth. Didn't even try... Instead we got Scapegoating and assertions of Falsifiability.
3. Appeal to authority - where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it. The Messiah.
4. Appeal to ridicule - a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous. Republicans want a new plane?
5. Availability cascade — a self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and it will become true"). Republicans are responsible for all the nations ills.
6. Stereotyping — expecting a member of a group to have certain characteristics without having actual information about that individual. Bush is a Republican, McCain is a Republican, they are both Rich and Seneca supports Republicans - Therefore, Seneca is Rich.
7. Package-deal fallacy - when two or more things have been linked together by tradition or culture are said to stay that way forever. All Republicans = Bush
7. False consensus effect — the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them. Despite any proof to the contrary.
8. Illusory superiority — perceiving oneself as having desirable qualities to a greater degree than other people. Self-Explanatory...
9. Thought-terminating cliché - a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance. Bush=McCain, McSame, McBush, etc...
10. Appeal to consequences - a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument concludes a premise is either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences for a particular party. Nobody wants 4 more years of Bush - including most Republicans.
11. Appeal to fear - a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side. 4 more years....
12. Appeal to spite - a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party. Bush is Bad, therefore, all Republicans are equally bad.
13. Appeal to motive - where a premise is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its proposer. Proof, examples, supporting evidence etc. have all been discounted by Top Gun because Seneca (thats me!) seeks to point out the culpability of Democrats in the problems the nation faces.
14. Style over substance - a logical fallacy which occurs when one emphasizes the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalizing (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument. Q: What do you want? A: "Change"! Q: But what exactly is Obama offering as "Change"? A: "Change we can believe in!"

Explaining Democrat Policy

Democrat voters have not been able to explain or defend the legislation or action taken by the Democrat Party.

A High Standard: Unlike other candidates Obama's campaign refuses to accept contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees. --BarackObama.com

All Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008: Total from PACs
Obama, Barack --- $6,000

Some special interest money....

Obama surfaces in Rezko's federal corruption case:
In 13 years in politics, Obama has gotten at least $168,000 in campaign donations from Rezko, his family and business associates. The Sun-Times reported that figure last June. Obama’s “best estimate” seven months earlier had been that Rezko had raised no more than $60,000 for him. --ChicagoSunTimes

Obama: "Thats not the Tony Rezko I know."

 

[TruthAboveAll]

1. Ad hominem - attacking the personal instead of the argument. Nit-Witz.
2. Straw Man - The writer does not attack the argument that the opposition sets forth. Didn't even try... Instead we got Scapegoating and assertions of Falsifiability.
3. Appeal to authority - where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it. The Messiah.
4. Appeal to ridicule - a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous. Republicans want a new plane?
5. Availability cascade — a self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and it will become true"). Republicans are responsible for all the nations ills.
6. Stereotyping — expecting a member of a group to have certain characteristics without having actual information about that individual. Bush is a Republican, McCain is a Republican, they are both Rich and Seneca supports Republicans - Therefore, Seneca is Rich.
7. Package-deal fallacy - when two or more things have been linked together by tradition or culture are said to stay that way forever. All Republicans = Bush
7. False consensus effect — the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them. Despite any proof to the contrary.
8. Illusory superiority — perceiving oneself as having desirable qualities to a greater degree than other people. Self-Explanatory...
9. Thought-terminating cliché - a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance. Bush=McCain, McSame, McBush, etc...
10. Appeal to consequences - a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument concludes a premise is either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences for a particular party. Nobody wants 4 more years of Bush - including most Republicans.
11. Appeal to fear - a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side. 4 more years....
12. Appeal to spite - a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party. Bush is Bad, therefore, all Republicans are equally bad.
13. Appeal to motive - where a premise is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its proposer. Proof, examples, supporting evidence etc. have all been discounted by Top Gun because Seneca (thats me!) seeks to point out the culpability of Democrats in the problems the nation faces.
14. Style over substance - a logical fallacy which occurs when one emphasizes the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalizing (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument. Q: What do you want? A: "Change"! Q: But what exactly is Obama offering as "Change"? A: "Change we can believe in!"

Explaining Democrat Policy

Democrat voters have not been able to explain or defend the legislation or action taken by the Democrat Party.



All Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008: Total from PACs
Obama, Barack --- $6,000

Some special interest money....

Obama: "Thats not the Tony Rezko I know."

Yep.

And I mentioned this in another thread, wanting to post it here because of the direct link with the Democrat Party. Sadly, it also offers a possible, feasible explanation for some of the dismaying leftward motion we've witnessed in the Republican Party since the late 90's also.

This excerpt is from mediamouse.org, a self-described "left and progressive website..." It is from a 2005 book review of The Long Detour: The History and Future of the American Left by James Weinstein, "a socialist and former member of the Communist Party." Interestingly, the reviewer(s) is noticeably critical of the piece: not because of errors or lack of accuracy, but as a socialist himself Weinstein advocates the advance of socialism in the U.S. via effecting the "two parties", instead of development outright of the Socialist Party...

It is with his recommendations for the future that the book falls completely flat. While Weinstein highlights the successes of the trade union movement and the socialist movement of the early twentieth century, he rejects any attempts to create similar movements in the contemporary period. Weinstein, expanding on an argument advanced in his historical analysis, argues that the best way to win victories is to work within the two major parties. He rejects what he terms "love affair" the left has with creating their own party, arguing that such efforts are a "serious impediment to the creation of a coherent and effective movement to humanize our society." Instead of creating a party which would truly represent the desires of those on the left, and quite likely, resonate with many others, Weinstein proposes a strategy of competing in local congressional districts as either Democrats or Republicans and using these campaigns to push the two parties towards the left while working within the existing Progressive and Black Caucuses in the United States Congress. He identifies areas in which successes could be achieved--health care reform, education, and the domestic and foreign policy ramifications of the military-industrial complex--although there is no explanation of concrete ways in which the two major parties might become more responsive to these issues.

There are some obvious, notable factoids. Another oddly ironic fact is that Weinstein was in Chicago, and editor of Communist/Socialist publications In These Times, Studies on the Left and Socialist Review.
According to wikipedia.com, he died less than four months after this review was published.