Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for November, 2013

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

One of the best played soccer games in both American and Canadian history. I’m not a soccer expert American or otherwise and at best a casual soccer fan. I do have some appreciation for the sport, but do not follow it closely. But I do know this was one of the best games in soccer history between these two countries. Because of the two teams that were involved, how evenly matched they were and the fact that either team could’ve won it. American soccer needs more games like this and need more Americanized rules as well to bring more Americans fans in to today’s MLS. Which is something that the NASL understood 30-40 years ago which is why they were able to draw baseball and football size crowds to their games. And not stuck 15-10 thousand attendance and that would be good crowds for todays MLS.
Whitecaps

Read Full Post »

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Representative Bob Dornan wasn’t called ‘B One Bob’ for nothing. He had a tendency to say nutty things and throw a lot of partisan bombs out there without a lot of thought. Another way to describe Bob Dornan would The Blind Bomber because again he had a tendency to say things blindly without much though put into his comments at least as far as the consequences for saying some of the things that he did. And then throw his overly partisan nature and the district that he represented in California, this overly partisan approach cost him his House seat in 1996 to Loretta Sanchez. Whose still in the House today and has been there since 1997. Bob Dornan’s approach is very well suited to talk radio and perhaps cable talk TV, not well-suited for Congress even in the House of Representatives. Where there are rules in place for how members address each other and how they address the President of the United States.
Bob Dornan

Read Full Post »

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

As I said yesterday Senate Democrats essentially had no choice, but to do this because of how Senate Republicans have changed the rules in how the Senate filibuster was used. By saying, “even though we are the opposition and minority party in the United States and only have forty-five members of the Senate, we get to decide when the President of the United States that our party has now lost to twice both in Electoral College landslides and lost the Senate elections as well, we’ll get to decide when an if President Obama will get to make appointments to either his administration or the courts. Based on whether we believe those offices should exist. And whether or not we believe that office needs to be filled right now.

Instead of Senate Republicans blocking people based on whether they are qualified or not. Which has been the tradition of whether or not presidential appointments should be blocked or not. Again Leader Reid was forced to do this, but Senate Democrats will pay a price for this. The next time there is a Republican president and Republican Senate at the same time and with the state of the Republican Party, that could be a while, but stranger things have happened, like Senate Republicans picking up eleven seats in 1980 to give Senate Republicans the majority in the next Congress starting in 1981 to go with a Conservative Republican President in Ronald Reagan.
Harry Reid

Read Full Post »

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Newsflash, there’s bipartisan hypocrisy when it comes to the Senate filibuster. And a big example of why the U.S. Congress has a ten percent approval rating, because the upper chamber uses and complains about the filibuster to meet its short-term gains. Instead of what is best for the Senate and the country. And Senate Democrats were in favor of filibustering presidential nominees before they were against it. And Senate Republicans were against the Senate filibuster before they were in favor of it. The Senate filibuster debate is purely about politics and short-term political advantage to gain absolute power. To the point that the party in power wouldn’t even have to acknowledge the minority party and even the minority leadership about what bills to proceed to and to debate them.
Mitch McConnell

Read Full Post »

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Senate Democrats in favor of the filibuster before they were against it as it relates to presidential nominees. Again just goes to the bipartisan hypocrisy and an example of why the U.S. Congress has a ten-percent approval rating and that might be generous. That ten-percent might be members of the Senate or mental patients. But whoever they are the Senate filibuster is about short-term gain. And even though I’m in favor of Leader Reid using the nuclear option as it relates to presidential nominees because of how Senate Republicans have changed the rules as it relates to blocking presidential appointments, the hypocrisy in this debate is as obvious as the Earth is round. One thing that is bipartisan in Congress is hypocrisy. Democrats and Republicans love using tools against the other side. But when those tools are used against them, they call them unfair and that they must be unilaterally changed or outlawed.
Harry Reid

Read Full Post »

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Conservatism similar to liberalism, it depends on what you mean by it. Unlike with libertarianism where most people who follow politics probably have a pretty good idea what libertarianism actually is. And a big reason for that is how simple it is. Libertarians do not want government in their wallets or personal lives and be left alone unless they are hurting innocent people. But conservatism like Liberalism is a bit more complicated than that.

More people tend to get labeled conservative even if these people who are supposed to be Conservatives disagree with each other on what it means to be a Conservative. For instance Barry Goldwater who I believe is the father of modern classical conservatism, or at least modern conservative libertarianism who was famous for saying get big government out of my wallet and bedroom, he would be a Conservative today.

But someone like Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann who are both called Conservatives or Dennis Prager even, yet even though they probably tend to agree with Senator Goldwater when it comes to economic and foreign policy, but they would sharply disagree when it comes to social issues. Because they meaning Senator Santorum, Representative Bachmann and Mr. Prager believe in serious restrictions when it comes to what people can do with their personal lives.

If your idea of a Conservative is someone whose against big government both as it relates to the economy and as it relates to people’s lives and what people do in their privacy, which is what I believe and I’m a Liberal, than Andrew Sullivan is your Conservative in this debate. But if your idea of a Conservative is someone who believes in a strong national defense, small government as it relates to the economy with low taxes across the board, but traditionalism as far as Americans should live their lives and that government should even enforce that on society, than Santorum and Bachmann would be your Conservatives.

Because someone who also believes in a traditional way of life and when Americans moves away from that it is bad for the country a way of life from let’s say back in the 1950s and that we need legal restrictions on what people can do in their personal lives for the good of the country, to me at least would be a big government Republican or rightist. And Dennis Prager would be your Conservative in this debate if that is your idea of conservative. But he’s not a Conservative in the sense he believes in conserving freedom both economic and personal. As he is in conserving a certain way of life, even if that means in restricting personal freedom.

Again it goes to what you mean by conservative, but conservatism in a political sense is how Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan even described it as, conserving freedom and allowing for people to live their own lives and making their own decisions. In other words conserving freedom, not that it is the job of government to decide how people should live their own lives. And for people who live differently and have different values, they need to be in prison for that.
RWR

Read Full Post »

German Health Care
The Dish: Opinion: Andrew Sullivan: Healthcare Socialism 1; Healthcare Capitalism 0

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

This idea that capitalism is better when it comes to producing things that people want, but socialism is better for things that people need to live well, in other words capitalism is better for producing luxury cars, cell phones, computers to use as examples, but a state-owned socialist system for producing things that people need to live well, take health care and health insurance to use as examples. Well you don’t see at least in America a lot of people calling for nationalizing the food industry.

Agriculture, grocery stores, restaurants, we all need food right. You don’t see a lot of people in America calling for nationalizing the energy industry, only the Far-Left wants to nationalize energy. And we all need and use energy to get around and keep our homes warm and cool. You don’t see a lot of people calling for nationalizing banking in this country, again only the Far-Left. We all use and need to use banks, because it is still the safest place to keep our money and we’ve all borrowed money before because we needed to that as well.

Where government comes in is to do the things that we need it to do that it is best qualified to do. And in some cases the only ones qualified to do. Like foreign policy, law enforcement, prisons, homeland security, central intelligence, regulating the markets and collecting the taxes to pay for the government that we need. Germany the largest country in Europe and the largest economy in Europe and fourth largest economy in the world is a perfect example of a country that has shown you don’t need government-run health care and health insurance to have an affordable and quality health care system.

Germany has private health insurance from cradle to grave. Their hospitals and clinics are private as well, but what they do well unlike America at least yet is properly regulate their private health care system. So their people aren’t abused by their health care providers. And every German is required to cover their own health care costs and not able to pass those costs on to others. Things that America has just started doing and their health costs are half that of the United States.

I’m tired of hearing these bogus arguments that the rest of the developed world has government-run health care which is why America should do the same thing. Or government is automatically better at delivering health care and health insurance than the private sector. Germany, France and Japan are perfect examples of countries that do not try to do everything for their people through government. Including health care and they all have better health care systems than the United States. At least when it comes to paying for their health care.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: