But they are in play. I suppose it partly depends how you define the phrase "social issues." The two parties have fundamental differences when it comes to environmental issues, abortion rights, same-sex marriage/civil unions, the way science is taught in our schools, and generally the extent to which certain religious beliefs will intrude on our lives. et cetera.
Seriously? In play, like national health care, which was promised by Truman in 1948? Where is it? In play, like outlawing abortion? Republican presidents and republican congress, appointees to SCOTUS to tip the balance. Where is it? How about that Defense of Marriage Act, passed 85-14 in the Senate and signed by Bill Clinton! The schools are doing great tho, right?
Social Security - FDR. Why is that not considered national health care? Just because you have to be retired to take advantage of it?
Truman promised universal health care in 1948. It's been part of the Democratic Party platform ever since. Democrats controlled both houses of congress from 1960-1980 (and before that). During those years, JFK, LBJ, and Carter were Democratic Party presidents. In 1993 and 1994, Democrats controlled both houses of congress and Clinton was president. What's the excuse?
It sure is. They're politicians. They make promises they don't keep. If they passed enough bridges to nowhere to satisfy everyone, they could pass whatever they want! So there is no difference between the parties. About the only thing the president can really do is veto and do foreign policy things.
You seem to think there's fundamental differences between the two parties. All I see are empty promises unfulfilled. Are you suggesting that 'et cetra' doesn't include both the republican and democratic parties' "social issues" that I enumerated? Including anti-same-sex marriage/civil unions laws, which I showed you Democrats voted for in big numbers and signed into law?
One wants to tax and spend, the other wants to borrow and spend. That's the only big difference. I'll take the borrow, thanks. No matter who's policies have been in place, we've rarely run a surplus, and the last one was all hot air.
No Dumpy, I don't think they're in play. Sure, there are fundamental differences in how the parties approach the "social issues" but if you think most of those guys want to start up a culture war, I've got some land in the Everglades you might be interested in. There's no benefit to either party in pushing those issues too hard. Just too dangerous. Think of it like social security, which everyone "got serious about" a couple years ago, and then it fell flat because it was too entrenched to fuck with. And Social Security is actually an important issue in the long run that will need some sort of modification. Gay marriage, for example, has all the downsides of an argument over social security, but without the upside of doing any really widespread good. I don't say that as an opponent of gay marriage, by the way, I'm all for it. But it's a sidelight issue for most Americans... unless you cram it down their throats (one way or another). I think, further, the taste everyone has gotten this last week over "the role of women" is one that most folks would prefer to have out of their mouths. These sort of social changes are best handled generationally and not legislatively, and most of the guys running the show in both parties are aware of that. Saying the Republicans are going to outlaw abortion and the Democrats are going to turn all your kids gay is mostly a scare tactic for each side to keep their zealots in line, and reasonable people would do well to pay no mind.
How close is this land to Dolphin Stadium? lol. Mike; you are right about scare tactics. I'm certain I've gone off on a rant about Gay Marriage, overturning Roe v Wade, etc... and other emotional wedge issues in which Rush O'Hannity, Coultergeist, Savage, and other AM talk Radio pinheads trot out on behalf on the Republican party. Why? To scare people and keep people from real issues like the Education system, Wall St bailout, Social security, revamping the tax code, and other issues that might actually improve the quality of life. The aforementioned yahoos if not start class warfare always keep that threat in the minds of people just to keep them afraid & compliant. Ironic really. United we stand Divided we fall.
Theoretically I agree. It just a matter of which special interests/causes/corporations and/or foreign nations they suck up to and accept "gifts" from.
The BIG LIE scare tactic these days is Global Warming. A hilarious read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink UN says eat less meat to curb global warming · Climate expert urges radical shift in diet · Industry unfairly targeted - farmers <!-- end article-header --> Juliette Jowit, environment editor The Observer, Sunday September 7 2008 Article history A joint of beef. Photograph/Alamy People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world's leading authority on global warming has told The Observer Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year earned a joint share of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further. His comments are the most controversial advice yet provided by the panel on how individuals can help tackle global warning. Pachauri, who was re-elected the panel's chairman for a second six-year term last week, said diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental problems - including habitat destruction - associated with rearing cattle and other animals. It was relatively easy to change eating habits compared to changing means of transport, he said. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. These are generated during the production of animal feeds, for example, while ruminants, particularly cows, emit methane, which is 23 times more effective as a global warming agent than carbon dioxide. The agency has also warned that meat consumption is set to double by the middle of the century. 'In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity,' said Pachauri. 'Give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and decrease it from there,' said the Indian economist, who is a vegetarian. However, he also stressed other changes in lifestyle would help to combat climate change. 'That's what I want to emphasise: we really have to bring about reductions in every sector of the economy.' Pachauri can expect some vociferous responses from the food industry to his advice, though last night he was given unexpected support by Masterchef presenter and restaurateur John Torode, who is about to publish a new book, John Torode's Beef. 'I have a little bit and enjoy it,' said Torode. 'Too much for any person becomes gluttony. But there's a bigger issue here: where [the meat] comes from. If we all bought British and stopped buying imported food we'd save a huge amount of carbon emissions.' Tomorrow, Pachauri will speak at an event hosted by animal welfare group Compassion in World Farming, which has calculated that if the average UK household halved meat consumption that would cut emissions more than if car use was cut in half. The group has called for governments to lead campaigns to reduce meat consumption by 60 per cent by 2020. Campaigners have also pointed out the health benefits of eating less meat. The average person in the UK eats 50g of protein from meat a day, equivalent to a chicken breast and a lamb chop - a relatively low level for rich nations but 25-50 per cent more than World Heath Organisation guidelines. Professor Robert Watson, the chief scientific adviser for the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, who will also speak at tomorrow's event in London, said government could help educate people about the benefits of eating less meat, but it should not 'regulate'. 'Eating less meat would help, there's no question about that, but there are other things,' Watson said. However, Chris Lamb, head of marketing for pig industry group BPEX, said the meat industry had been unfairly targeted and was working hard to find out which activities had the biggest environmental impact and reduce those. Some ideas were contradictory, he said - for example, one solution to emissions from livestock was to keep them indoors, but this would damage animal welfare. 'Climate change is a very young science and our view is there are a lot of simplistic solutions being proposed,' he said. Last year a major report into the environmental impact of meat eating by the Food Climate Research Network at Surrey University claimed livestock generated 8 per cent of UK emissions - but eating some meat was good for the planet because some habitats benefited from grazing. It also said vegetarian diets that included lots of milk, butter and cheese would probably not noticeably reduce emissions because dairy cows are a major source of methane, a potent greenhouse gas released through flatulence.
I've said elsewhere on this site that the left uses Climate change like the right uses terrorism. My point was that talking heads on both sides obfuscate the real issues and solutions. That way the status quo remains & whoever is dishing out the 30 pieces of silver remains pleased.
