Well, this is a tough one to explain. At first glance it seems to be yet another example of Republican hypocrisy and political flip-flopping, but the Republicans do offer an interesting explanation that makes me wonder.
I have some points for us all to ponder to aid us in understanding why some people were against the health insurance mandate from the beginning and why relabeling it a “tax” doesn’t change the underlying issues people have with it.
Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say a lot of silly things for which they are criticized, but it is often missed that they have good reasons for saying things the way they do. Sometimes, statements are made in direct or indirect response to equally silly things that Democrats have said.
This is the question many are still asking. Who are they? Who founded it? What are their greivances? What are their demands? Are they negotiable? And who do we negotiate with? The first step to understanding a group is to listen to what they say. What are they saying?
Most people are moderates and don’t feel we live in a particularly divided country. The media, of course, frames everything in terms of left and right and has to find ways to classify people as one or the other. Whether someone is a conservative or liberal then, depends on how the issues are framed.
Some guy burned a Koran. Then there were riots. Many people (including Sean Hannity) blamed the book-burner for putting our troops in further harm by provoking Muslims. The question nobody seems to be asking is, who provoked this guy into doing the burning? Past rioters? If it makes sense to blame someone other than the rioters for rioting, doesn’t it make sense to blame someone other than the burner for burning?
The ink is barely dry on the story of Osama Bin Laden's death, but I still believe it is not too early to make a prediction.
Sorry, readers. I have been busy again. My employer has me working overtime and I've had lots of errands. I haven't had much time to keep up on the news or write.
It did occur to me the other day that I should probably answer the partisan claims made about the recent government shutdown. Democrats blame the Republicans, claiming they ask too much and have pursued a radical agenda that has little to do with cutting costs or balancing the budget, cutting essential services while maintaining questionable ones. Some have even gone as far as to imply that Republicans want to kill women and old people. Republicans blame the Democrats, countering that their budget proposal only returns spending to 2008 levels (after the dems had control of the congress for 2 years), nothing radical like 1789 levels. They claim that the Democrats failed to pass a budget last year when there was a Republican minority, probably just so that they could make an issue out of this now to blame Republicans for. They claim that at current levels, the various government programs in question will run out of money soon and that all they are doing is SAVING the programs by making some sensible spending cuts and improvements in efficiency.
Who's right? Well, logic alone dictates that since the shutdown only occured because an agreement could not be reached, and if either side got exactly what they wanted there would have been no shutdown, neither side can be held exclusively responsible. Republicans failed to agree to Democrat demands for reasons similar to why Democrats failed to agree to Republican demands. Everybody wishes there was a greater willingness to compromise, but both sides feel that their own side has already compromised more than enough.
It seems to me that our time would be better spent seeking solutions than playing the blame game.
Can anybody explain Obama's justification for intervention in Libya? Seriously, I need help; I'm totally confused.
Animal welfare activists seem prone to certain inconsistencies. Then again, my perception of inconsistency may merely be a reflection of a lack of understanding of the subject.
Hi, I'm Dan. I like chocolate, hiking, and politics.