Ahh the good old 'work ethic'. Just like the holy founding fathers (peace be upon them) wanted....

It seems like you can get away with anything as long as you call it a good 'work ethic'. "Don't want to wark 60 hours a week? Well Timmy here does, now that's good work ethic"

/sarcasm.

These republicans even make the national news over here in the Netherlands, in a discussion:
Q: "Are there any good republican candidates against Obama?"
A: "To be honest, I don't think there have ever been this many idiots in the republican primaries"

It always strikes me how the same words like "Honest" and "Fair" mean completely different things across political parties. Like what's fair taxation?.. Useless rhetoric.

Does anyone else think that Perry, Bachmann, Cain, et al., are just being fielded as rodeo clowns to keep the heat/focus off of Romney? It does take the focus off of him & his blatant reversal of positions and kooky cult-leader status.

That Cain bloke seems to think that successful people can't be blamed for being successful. Their work ethic had nothing to do with it?* Who's fault is it or is it purely luck?


* I'd hazard that middle class rich probably can argue it was their work ethic; but obscenely rich? There seem to be many factors which lead them to being rich, not all of which involve work at all. /imo.

I note the absence of libertarians on this thread, or is that an oversight? Have they all fled the forum or what?

NilsGLindgren wrote:I note the absence of libertarians on this thread, or is that an oversight? Have they all fled the forum or what?

We can but hope...

If you don't want to think, you shouldn't talk.

I just listened to the 20 minute video of Bachmann and the comment about those who don't work, don't eat was not taken out of context but part of a long diatribe against socialism.

Here it is in a nutshell:
She wants to close the dept. of education. She wants to stop programs such as public housing and welfare and let states decide what to do about the poor. She also harped on weird conspiracy theories about the united nations and how they are trying to control how we raise our children. She believes the role of government should be to protect life (end abortion) from conception on and protect marriage (for heterosexual couples only). She would also end planned parenthood and "Obamacare" because it's social engineering.

One thing she said that I do agree with is that there's too much crony capitalism in Washington, politicians using donations in exchange for favors.

She's a typical right wing nutjob---no government oversight or regulations on corporations, yet it's OK for the government to intrude on your private life when it concerns what you do with your own body.

mattwilson wrote:I stopped watching when the hint said universal healthcare is wrong because the 10th commandment is thou shall not covet what thy neighbor has. Sweet zombie Jesus she's a fucking moron

You said it! Isn't "coveting" what makes capitalism successful?

rab wrote:I just listened to the 20 minute video of Bachmann and the comment about those who don't work, don't eat was not taken out of context but part of a long diatribe against socialism.

Which America has never had. Furthermore, the idea that treating other human beings decently is "socialist", is the sort of nonsense only a fascist wackjob like Bachmann could utter with a straight face.

rab wrote:Here it is in a nutshell:
She wants to close the dept. of education.

All the better to keep the neo-serfs powerless. Quelle surprise

rab wrote:She wants to stop programs such as public housing and welfare

In short, her view consists of "only rich people deserve to be treated as human beings".

rab wrote:and let states decide what to do about the poor.

I hear the words "Soylent Green" ringing in my ears as I read this.

rab wrote:She also harped on weird conspiracy theories about the united nations and how they are trying to control how we raise our children.

A wholly disingenuous comment from someone who wants government to teach children to be Christofascist bigots.

rab wrote:She believes the role of government should be to protect life (end abortion) from conception on and protect marriage (for heterosexual couples only).

Never mind doing anything substantive to keep the economy both healthy and a provider of opportunity to everyone, let's just keep tickling those Christofascist erogenous zones ....

rab wrote:She would also end planned parenthood and "Obamacare" because it's social engineering.

And turning everyone into ignorant neo-serfs and corporate slaves isn't "social engineering"? She's a fuckwit, plain and simple.

rab wrote:One thing she said that I do agree with is that there's too much crony capitalism in Washington, politicians using donations in exchange for favors.

She knows something about this.

rab wrote:She's a typical right wing nutjob---no government oversight or regulations on corporations, yet it's OK for the government to intrude on your private life when it concerns what you do with your own body.

Indeed. She's basically one of the Christofascists. Wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that she was a Dominionist.

Calilasseia wrote:
Which America has never had. Furthermore, the idea that treating other human beings decently is "socialist", is the sort of nonsense only a fascist wackjob like Bachmann could utter with a straight face.

Definitions on socialism and communism in the US right are so utterly without foundation in the observable world ... a previous Rep. Presidential Candidate claimed Sweden had "liberal-communist newspapers", giving a distinct impression that the person did not know what neither liberalism nor communism really stand for. Oxymoronic. Nah, scratch the oxy-.

Can someone explain to me why some republican candidates want to close the department of education? That would be considered lunacy here. (but I understand we are very different to the US)

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Can someone explain to me why some republican candidates want to close the department of education? That would be considered lunacy here. (but I understand we are very different to the US)

Cannon-fodder don't need no learnin. Don't want them to be getting all uppity.

Could some American please explain what 'leave it to the states' actually means.

To me if a country decides something is right and should be done then it should be implemented throughout the country, if a country can't decide what is universally how to proceed then why bother staying a single country?

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Can someone explain to me why some republican candidates want to close the department of education? That would be considered lunacy here. (but I understand we are very different to the US)

One reason is they want to privatize schools, i.e., have private schools and charter schools with little or no federal funding. It goes back to the socialist thing.

Another reason, in particular for right wing christians like Bachmann, they want creationism taught in schools, i.e., a curriculum based on the bible. In America, church and school are separate (although school boards have been successful in sneaking in bible study crouched in religious/historical studies). They want education based on scripture. Schools not funded by the government will easily have the option of teaching the bible right along with math and spelling.

mrjonno wrote:Could some American please explain what 'leave it to the states' actually means.

To me if a country decides something is right and should be done then it should be implemented throughout the country, if a country can't decide what is universally how to proceed then why bother staying a single country?

Good point. The fact that we have laws that cross state lines irritates the religious right because of issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion.

An example of this recently occurred in the state of Mississippi. Right wing legislators in that state wanted to pass a state law that gave "personhood" to zygotes. In other words, life begins at conception. The way the law was written, it could have made it a crime for a woman to have an abortion or even to take a birth-control pill. That way, they could have overridden the Supreme Court's decision that made abortion legal.

Fortunately, the majority in that state came to their senses and voted it down.

Are not Americans really worried by the GOP candidates?

Well I am terrified and I dont even live there. Even Romnay is not safe. I just hope that Obama gets back in.

Palin was bad enough but this Bachman is really the pits.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Can someone explain to me why some republican candidates want to close the department of education? That would be considered lunacy here. (but I understand we are very different to the US)

Get the federal government out of Education.

mrjonno wrote:Could some American please explain what 'leave it to the states' actually means.

Let the governing being done on the State (not Federal) level. This is a large principle of the founding of the country to begin with. To have autonomous states with the exception of a few key (unavoidable) federal entities.

HughMcB wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Can someone explain to me why some republican candidates want to close the department of education? That would be considered lunacy here. (but I understand we are very different to the US)

Get the federal government out of Education.

mrjonno wrote:Could some American please explain what 'leave it to the states' actually means.

Let the governing being done on the State (not Federal) level. This is a large principle of the founding of the country to begin with. To have autonomous states with the exception of a few key (unavoidable) federal entities.

But it is not the 18th centuary and education should have the same level all over the country.

I see, thanks for the answers.

Scot Dutchy wrote:But it is not the 18th centuary and education should have the same level all over the country.

Not really, as far as they are concerned each state should be able to decide what is on the curriculum and so forth. One loved idea in the US is that if you don't like the way one state is run then you simply move to another with more favourable laws.

I don't see why people have a problem understanding this, many EU laws that are passed see large opposition on the national level by countries that feel overlooked or shafted. These countries complain that there is too much intereference from the European Government. Now just replace the EU government with US Federal and Country with State.