The Democratic Safe House (2)

[Touma]

I'm loving the Romney falling apart thing. The typical conservatives are straying away from that thread. I think they realize Mitt is done.

 

[DaisyDay]

I'm loving the Romney falling apart thing. The typical conservatives are straying away from that thread. I think they realize Mitt is done.

There are several threads about it.

It is too soon to say what will happen in the next month and a half.

 

[Redac]

Maybe I haven't been reading the threads carefully enough - I've been skimming a few - but it seems like every single thread about Romney or every comment about Romney in these threads quickly devolves into "Well Obama is still bad!"

 

[Genersis]

A piece of my mind on the Birther thing;
Why does it even matter?

Even if Obama wasn't a US citizen, US voters found him the better candidate for US presidency, and elected him.
How does a person's country of birth effect that?

The only thing it effects is his elections legitimacy, in other words, people are only bringing it up and complaining about it because they want a technicality to boot him out of the White house on. It's quite sad really.

 

[stamperben]

We're seeing desperation from that side. It's not pretty.

 

[DaisyDay]

Maybe I haven't been reading the threads carefully enough - I've been skimming a few - but it seems like every single thread about Romney or every comment about Romney in these threads quickly devolves into "Well Obama is still bad!"

You gotta go with the best you got. Yeah, it's sad.

 

[Redac]

So what's you guys' take on the whole redistribution video thing? I personally don't care that much, but I wonder if it'll end up meaning anything.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I don't think it means anything. It is from 1998.

Talk about redistribution, look who got richer when:

Trickle economics hasn't worked for most. Perhaps the tax breaks the rich were given gave them particular ability to get richer in relation to the middle class. Obama isn't talking about taking form the rich to give to the poor - he is talking about the middle class being given a fair shake.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I'm loving the Romney falling apart thing. The typical conservatives are straying away from that thread. I think they realize Mitt is done.

He would have to do awesome in the debates to come back... but he won't. Like his father, he will put his foot in his mouth.

 

[Genersis]

So what's you guys' take on the whole redistribution video thing? I personally don't care that much, but I wonder if it'll end up meaning anything.

You mean the one linked to in the "Another Redistribution Speech" thread?

Well, all i can say is, it's silly how scared of the phrase "Redistribution of wealth" some people are.
Taking more money in tax from people who can afford to pay more in taxes is how we can allow poorer people to benefit from healthcare/an education/firemen/policemen ETC who could otherwise never afford it.
That is a good thing in my opinion...
Or does only direct benefits/welfare fall under "redistribution of wealth"?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

....all i can say is, it's silly how scared of the phrase "Redistribution of wealth" some people are.

Taking more money in tax from people who can afford to pay more in taxes is how we can allow poorer people to benefit from healthcare/an education/firemen/policemen ETC who could otherwise never afford it.
That is a good thing in my opinion...

Or does only direct benefits/welfare fall under "redistribution of wealth"?

The Redistribution dynamic does seem to be very interesting when considering the ways it often seems to follow right alongside the concept of Revolution...specically in cases where people wishing to have redistribution open the door for others to use the same language and yet do so in the name of a positive while promoting a negative---similar to the Communist Revolution where others were fighting against tyranny in one form of government but opened the door for others to use the movement that was started to address an issue...and in the process, hijack a movement for their own ends in the name of good (more shared here, here , here, here and here). Other revolutions have experienced the same realities many times and it's an ever present danger---as redistribution can be either good or bad depending on the people involved. On the issue, there are thankfully types of media that do help to get the point across.

In example, curious as to whether or not you've ever heard of the animated series known as Avatar: The Last Airbender or Avatar: The Legend of Korra? The series is truly amazing, IMHO..and within the show, there's a heavy emphasis on the abilities of those who are "benders"---people with the unique abilities to bend one of the 4 elements (Earth, Water, Wind, Fire). Those who are Fire Benders come in a variety of sizes and each have been show to either be extremely reckless in their handling of fire---or very graceful/pure in their use of it. The same principle applies to all other benders as well, depending on the elements they used.


In that universe, people have the ability to bend the elements (i.e. earth, fire, air, water, etc). Not all in that world are able to do so, but those who do have a distinct edge on those who don't---and there are others in that world who are both good and bad. Later on, it turns out that there's a lot of inequality between benders and non-benders---and even though people say that the Republic made by benders was meant to give non-benders hope, many are frustrated by much of the corruption done by benders and the injustices toward non-benders who can't defend themselves.

In the process, an anti-bending revolution rises up where the main leader decides to cleanse the world from bending and has the ability to erase bending---but in the process of trying to bring equality, the main leader/the revolution does JUST as much damage as any corruption done by benders..for they cannot appreciate the beauty in something that was used by others from the wrong---and those who still are symbolic of the beauty meant to be found in bending are terrorized.





For more, one can go here:

• Guest Post: 'The Legend of Korra' Takes On Redistribution ...
• ‘Avatar: The Legend of Korra’ Tackles Class and Urbanization, Is Amazing

As said best in one of the articles:

The Legend of Korra (the more-than-worthy sequel to the beloved Avatar: The Last Airbender) has been directly channeling the some of most philosophically sophisticated arguments on the morality and politics of redistributing wealth. It’s both a valuable public service and a joy to watch.

Korra is set in a world where some people, referred to as benders, have the ability to manipulate the four elements (water, earth, fire, and air). Benders have huge natural advantages over non-benders: being able to shoot fire out of your hands or freeze people in blocks of ice clearly gives you a decent leg up in a fight. But the show digs a layer deeper than that obvious use, creating a 1920s-esque industrial millieu wherein the social order constructed and maintained on bending abilities. Electricity is generated by firebenders who can manipulate lightning, the main professional sport is a sort of bending boxing, and so on.

The main thematic arc of Korra comes from a clear implication of that premise: benders and non-benders are not each others’ social equals. Because so many important roles are open only to benders, non-benders are systematically disadvantaged, denied access to important sectors of government and the economy. The police force, for example, is made up of specialized earthbenders who can manipulate metal. This state of affairs raises a basic moral question: is it acceptable to structure a society where the luck of being born a bender plays such a huge role in shaping your life chances?

Interestingly, the show makes its villain a champion of the most egalitarian solution to this problem. The masked terrorist Amon leads a shadowy organization called The Equalists, whose is to eliminate bending altogether to create a more equal society. By contrast, the heroine Korra is the bending champion par excellence: she’s The Avatar, the one bender in the world capable of manipulating all four elements. On a children’s show, even one as sophisticated as this one, the message of the good guy/bad guy division is clear: the proponents of equality are in the wrong. Though it’s made clear that Amon has a point, the means by which he goes about “redistributing” talents —taking away benders’ powers—seems unjust.

The debate between Amon and Korra, and the show’s slant on it, could have been ripped from the work of the 20th century’s most influential political philosopher, John Rawls. Rawls is famous, in part, for arguing that the natural distribution of talents is morally arbitrary: just because you’re lucky to be born smarter, faster, or even more predisposed to working hard than your neighbor doesn’t mean you’re entitled to more stuff than she is. Governments, then, have no moral reason to allow more talented individuals to acquire more resources than their less-talented peers. This view, called “luck egalitarianism,” seems to support Amon’s position. Just because benders have natural advantages non-benders doesn’t mean they ought to be allowed to have greater opportunity from the get-go. Indeed, Rawls contemplated a version of Amon’s solution,casting a sympathetic eye to the idea that it would be a good thing to use genetic engineering to improve the lot of those born with natural disadvantages.

But Rawls explicitly rejects Amon’s actual proposal, the idea that we ought to take away talents from individuals in the name of promoting equality. Rawls was, in contrast to his Marxist opponents, a liberal progressive, willing to tolerate a degree of inequality inasmuch as that inequality improved the lot of the poorest people in society. Capitalism was good, Rawls thought, because the limited amount of inequality it required significantly improved the lives of the poor by generating more wealth. In Korra‘s world, destroying the technology that benders power would almost certainly make the poorest non-benders worse off. If all the firebenders disappeared, Republic City’s power grid would shut off overnight, hurting non-benders that depend on it for heating, refrigeration, and light. Rawls, then, likely would have taken Korra’s side: benders should be allowed to keep their powers because it’s best for the most vulnerable that they do.

In this case, that solution seems like a bit of a cop-out. We feel like Amon is doing something wrong when (spoiler!) he takes away a famous pro-bending team’s abilities not because it hurts the poor, but because he’s doing an injustice to the team members themselves

The Legend of Korra: Amon Interrupts The Pro Bending Championships​

This raises the idea that while significant inequality might be wrong, it might also intrinsically wrong to forcibly take the abilities from people that give rise to some inequalities. Of course, we aren’t confronted with this trade-off in the current American economic climate, as much of our inequality is caused by policy that favors the not-necessarily-so-talented 1%.


Nonetheless, though, America’s inequality problem does force us to grapple with basic moral questions about why and how much redistribution is morally justified. The Legend Of Korra, by setting up a fictional world where radical left and progressive liberal views of economic justice clash, is helping us clarify our most fundamental beliefs on the topic. Not bad for a Saturday morning cartoon.



​

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Originally Posted by Jessica01

I honestly believe they wanted the economy to stay bad so that Obama would look bad - though he did great. But will folks recognize they did that?
​

Good points...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I don't think it means anything. It is from 1998.

Talk about redistribution, look who got richer when:

Trickle economics hasn't worked for most. Perhaps the tax breaks the rich were given gave them particular ability to get richer in relation to the middle class. Obama isn't talking about taking form the rich to give to the poor - he is talking about the middle class being given a fair shake.

Precisely...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You mean the one linked to in the "Another Redistribution Speech" thread?

Well, all i can say is, it's silly how scared of the phrase "Redistribution of wealth" some people are.
Taking more money in tax from people who can afford to pay more in taxes is how we can allow poorer people to benefit from healthcare/an education/firemen/policemen ETC who could otherwise never afford it.

That is a good thing in my opinion...


Or does only direct benefits/welfare fall under "redistribution of wealth"?

What happens to the Middle Class is often what impacts all...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Hopefully things can change...

 

[BleedingHeart]

He would have to do awesome in the debates to come back... but he won't. Like his father, he will put his foot in his mouth.

More than likely. He has such a record of 180 degree flips, it'll come up as a subject during the debate.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Got this today:

 

[BleedingHeart]

Got this today:

The funny thing about you posting that here Free is that many of us have never voted Republican at all.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I used to. In Arizona, you have to register as a member of a party to vote in that party's primary and as the Republicans dominated, I registered that way. But I have been a registered Democrat for quite a few years now. I really liked Janet Napolitano

The picture above was on my Facebook page. I thought it was a good one

 

[Touma]

Remember the little lie pushed about Obama not getting security briefings daily, and how this meant he was terrible and all that?


WELLL...that's a big, fat, honking lie.


The bogus claim that Obama 'skips’ his intelligence briefings - The Washington Post



So why was this a story?? Oh yeah, they are desperate for anything.