Why are Republicans not in open rebellion?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

2. You claim the government is a parasite. This is illogical, given you also claim it gives us "enabling constraints." Parasites don't enable (other than to help us poop more freely). Government is a framework within which we all operate. Acting within that framework, paradoxically, is frequently liberating (much as obeying the word of wisdom, for example is liberating even though it removes the option of partaking of certain substances- you have called this an "enabling constraint"). This has nothing to do with your point in #1 above, however. An individual's opinion on #1 does not necessarily reflect, nor does it necessarily affect, an individual's opinion on #2.

In short, I'm not sure what you are trying to assert here.

First we need perspective.

Society is larger than government. Government is both a parasite and an enabling constraint. It is first a parasite, and second sometimes enabling if it doesn't kill or greatly weaken the host society.

To the extent that busines can predict, business will function at some level. Government, which offers predictability offers some benefit.

An example of an enabling constraint. Industry needs educated workers, but the funding frequently comes from real estate tax revenue which impacts the real estate of industry and commercial centers in addition to residential property. The revenue drain reduces available capital, but to the extent better workers are produced through education, industry should be able to recapture losses through increased productivity.

To the extent, government brings reasonable order to chaos, government is enabling. To the extent, it causes traffic jams, it is parasitic and harmful. The problem with large institutional governments is much of what they do lands more in the area of making traffic lanes impassable, as opposed to ordering chaos. To some extent, once basic ground rules are set, commerce will bring order.

The tension of order versus chaos was one of the themes found in Babylon 5 with the Vorlons versus the Shadows.

It is my position that the American left is all about traffic jams and the American Right has forgotten that traffic must move.

Somebody who desires our society to function as a living organism such as I, desires the least amount of enabling constraints, to allow the creativity of chaos and change to remain at play.

There's an axiom. "If something in commerce moves, tax it. If it still moves, regulate it. If it then dies, subsidize it." The Democratic philosophy is one of regulation and subsidy. A true Republican philosophy is one laissez faire.

Both parties lose sight of the purpose and limitations of government, because for them, it's just a game of power.

[Cali Coug]

Maybe it is starting!

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009026

A scathing opinion by the Wall Street Journal. If I had spent time working on Republican causes, and donated money to Republican campaigns in 2004, I would be more than irate looking back on what they have "accomplished" in 2 years in office. Then I would be asking why I should bother to reelect those same morons back into office after they did nothing with the power I worked to get them.

[Archaea]

hoya, you actually sound nothing more than a Democrat wishing Republicans would kill themselves so that Democrats can walk in by default.

Yes Reps are more critical of Reps than Dems, but traditionally even Reps are pragmatic.

I wager this neither Foley nor the other guy get reelected, if they run. However, if one is a Dem, one can kill a secretary by abandoning her while drunk, and do all other sorts of horrible things. Dems do not retaliate or become disenchanted against Dems.

In a caricature, Reps are sometimes, oft times hypocrits, and they get excoriated for holding Dems up to "higher" standards that even Reps don't hold.

Dems never hold themselves up to any standards, ever. Lieberman tried to, and look where that got him.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

hoya, you actually sound nothing more than a Democrat wishing Republicans would kill themselves so that Democrats can walk in by default.

Yes Reps are more critical of Reps than Dems, but traditionally even Reps are pragmatic.

I wager this neither Foley nor the other guy get reelected, if they run. However, if one is a Dem, one can kill a secretary by abandoning her while drunk, and do all other sorts of horrible things. Dems do not retaliate or become disenchanted against Dems.

In a caricature, Reps are sometimes, oft times hypocrits, and they get excoriated for holding Dems up to "higher" standards that even Reps don't hold.

Dems never hold themselves up to any standards, ever. Lieberman tried to, and look where that got him.

"Kill themselves?" Me thinks you take this too seriously. Way to go out on a limb on Foley, by the way. To wager he won't be reelected is very, very bold.

I hold Republicans to a higher expectation right now than Democrats for one simple reason: they have all of the power of all three branches of government. With power comes responsibility, and they have shirked that responsibility. Indeed, they haven't even tried to do what they were elected to do. Failure to act, pure and simple.

Don't think I am not disappointed in Democrats either. I would have a hard time voting for any incumbent in this election, Republican or Democrat. I would be far more prone to reelect a Democrat, though, because I haven't seen what they would do if given the chance (though admittedly, they haven't been interested in telling me what they would do either).

Imagine if Republicans had followed your counsel and continued voting in bad Republicans. Reagan likely wouldn't have been elected had Ford won a second term. People would have been sick of Republicans at that point. Republicans bolted from Ford, they lost and Carter won, and then, in the eyes of Republicans, their best leader of the 20th century was elected. Republicans refusing to endorse bad leaders forced change within the party.

There are lots of examples just like that one. Look at the GOP congressional takeover in 1994. Would that have happened if Republicans had have supported GWB and led him to a second term? No way.

The parties need fresh blood every once in a while to get them back in touch with the voters. Leave them in too long and they get out of touch (and turn to crap like this Congress has).

[Archaea]

You won't convince ever that having Democrats will be good for me and my house.

You're trying, but I am not that much happier about Reagan or Bush, except they reduced the top marginal rates.

The Democrats cannot benefit me.

The true bottom line for anybody is, at the end of the day, do you take home and retain more of your earnings. That's what this rat race is about. If not, then all the rhetoric is meaningless. Under Democrats I'm poorer, under Reps, I eek out a few dollars more.

Society is about producing capital, subject to certain enabling constraints.

What I produce for my family in terms of capital and quality time is how I will be judged. Democratic policies impede my abilities to maximze quality time and to maximize my capital. Neither Reps nor Dems care about any of us, and the hopes that somebody around the corner might lurk is a reason to throw out people I don't like for people I dislike more?

That logic is completely irrational.

The truth is, you never hold Democrats, whether in power or out of power to a high standard. Until Reagan, I remember election after election the Dems controlling the Congress and nobody cared about all the excess spending and NO Democrat took the Dems to task. Only the Reps.

So I do not believe any Dem stating, the only reason he doesn't hold Dems to the same standard is due to lack of power. Dems don't canabalize their own. And in reality, I don't ask them to and it is unreasonable for you to wonder why Reps don't canabalize their own.

And you think I'm going out on a limb to see Foley won't be reelected. If he were a Dem, he would be reelected in a Democratic section, and most Dems would vote for him. There is A double standard and Dems won't admit it.

Dems traditionally impose NO standard of conduct on Dems. We have all the Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and even Nixon years to prove that.

Now I won't with a straight face post that Reps have a much better standard, but because Reps are less pragmatic than most Dems, the Rep standard is higher, not where it should be ideally, but Reps will refuse to vote for a women killer, or child molester of their party. I've never seen any evidence Dems won't.

The bottom line is, I won't excoriate Dems for not holding their party representatives to any standard of personal conduct at all. I don't expect them to, and never will, if I ever did. You may be able to scan the entire expanse of our history where Democrats did exercise, but absolutely none come to mind. The fact that you state now, in the convenience of board, that you would, is unconvincing and entirely self-serving for your argument. It is simply not credible.

And Reps are NO different, or very little different. My beleif is that a small number of Reps care about personal integrity, so those small numbers will refuse to vote for Reps, whom might be agreeable to them on the political issues, if the personal issues are disagreeable. However, the numbers of Dems will to walk this walk are less than negligible.

[UtahDan]

If we had a king rather than a president your analysis would make a lot more sense Hoya. Slow day at work?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

If we had a king rather than a president your analysis would make a lot more sense Hoya. Slow day at work?

Not sure what you are trying to say.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Not sure what you are trying to say.

lol...it's pretty obvious what he's saying.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

lol...it's pretty obvious what he's saying.

Care to help me out then? If we had a king rather than a president, we wouldn't be voting at all and the entire point of this thread would be moot. I'm not sure how that makes sense.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Care to help me out then? If we had a king rather than a president, we wouldn't be voting at all and the entire point of this thread would be moot. I'm not sure how that makes sense.

To be perfectly fair, I've no doubt you're clueless here.