Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums?
 • Intelligent and friendly discussions.
 • It's free and it's quick. Always.
 • Enter events in the forums calendar.
 • Very user friendly software.
 • Exclusive contests and giveaways.

 Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here
 Our 2014 Goal: $450.00 - To Date: $450.00 (100.00%)
 Home | Forums | Editorials | Shop | Tickets | Downloads | Contact Pittsburgh Steelers Forum Feed Not Just Fans. Hardcore Fans.

Go Back   Steelers Fever Forums > Miscellaneous > Locker Room


Steelers Fever Fan Shop

Doc's Sports Get FREE NFL Picks and College Football picks as well as Football Lines like live NFL Lines and updated NFL Power Rankings all at Doc's Sports Service.

Steelers Fever Presents...

Steelers Panthers

GAMEDAY
Sunday, September 21, 8:30 PM
NBC
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-21-2006, 09:11 PM   #11
tsunami
Banned
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2
Member Number: 2848
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Comment on this quote, please

Quote:
Originally Posted by Livinginthe past

Everyone who attacks liberals sounds awfully defensive - seriously its like 'conservatives' have to get their comeback in first.

Less name calling and labelling and more constructive input is the order of the day.

NM
Show me the logic and greater good of creating multi-generational entitlement and I'll lend an ear...
tsunami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2006, 05:52 AM   #12
Hammer67
Head Coach
Supporter
 
Hammer67's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Boston, MI (originally from Moon Township, PA)
Posts: 1,988
Gender: Male
Member Number: 651
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Comment on this quote, please

Quote:
Originally Posted by Livinginthe past
Maybe the accompanying press release said that welfare was a merely a stop gap - the way I see it, its more of a tool to keep people further down the food chain exactly where they are.

Im all for reform of the welfare state, both in the UK and the US, but reform is a very vague notion - what exactly are you suggesting?

Personally, i'd like to see an end to immigration to fill the jobs that natives of the country do not want to fill - instead people who are unable to find gainful employment should be forced to work these jobs or receive absolutely no state financial aid.

Everyone who attacks liberals sounds awfully defensive - seriously its like 'conservatives' have to get their comeback in first.

Less name calling and labelling and more constructive input is the order of the day.

NM
I agree that we should strengthen our work incentives for welfare. That is a sad part of the system. The problem is that the welfare state is now a vicious circle where people are used to a certain level of entitlement and have become complacent. At least that is how it is in the US. I hear it all the time, living in Detroit. I had an acquaintance who happened to come from a family that lived off of welfare for three generations. He left home and works three jobs because he was disgusted that his mother and siblings had learned to beat the system and stay on welfare. There just are not enough people that think like this guy.

Regarding attacks on liberals...I am not sure how it goes in the UK but in the US, most attacks come from the Far Left or Far Right. Both sides are blinded by their own ideologies and rarely offer constructive solutions.

Perfect examples are the far right and their issues with gay marriage and the far left's attacks on Bush. Neither one is offering constructive criticism.

Unfortunately, as a moderate, the issues I am mostly concerned with are national security and the economy which the liberal left have yet to offer solid answers for. I am no fan of Bush, but at least he is trying something different. It may not be politically popular but, like him or not, it is refreshing that he has an agenda and is not buckling to political bickering.

I think the US needs to see more solutions from the political left for it to truly be taken seriously.
__________________


"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

Hammer67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2006, 11:54 AM   #13
Mosca
Team President
Supporter
 
Mosca's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mountain Top, PA
Posts: 2,397
Gender: Male
Member Number: 1751
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Comment on this quote, please

If you step back from the rhetoric and the pundits and examine Clinton's record, you will find that we was actually quite conservative in his policies and the results.

Clinton implemented welfare reform; the days of perpetual welfare have been over for 10 years now. And the results show that more and more Americans who were once "welfare for life" are better off than they were under welfare.

Clinton was extremely responsible fiscally; he cut many boondoggle programs and has been the only president in the last 50 years to actually show a surplus rather than run a deficit. And he responded by cutting taxes.

Say what you will about the man's personal pecadilloes and you'll get no sound out of me, but he was a pretty good president.

And liberals haven't changed, but the definition of liberal has changed, from that of a centrist with inclusive ideas to that of an ivory tower idealist. They've allowed themselves to be defined by those who shout the loudest (on both sides). Most Americans, when asked, have personal ideals that are best described as somewhat liberal. (Not LEFT, but liberal; most Americans are tolerant and inclusive on a personal level. They might say they are against gay marriage, but they have gay friends and relatives and co-workers whom they wouldn't deny rights to.)

The real problem (and there IS a real problem with liberals) is that they have become paralyzed by treating all ideas as equal, and not standing up for what they believe. Conservationism and ecological responsibility are ideas that all Americans can get behind; tree-hugging and ecological terrorism are not. But by not drawing a line, liberals have allowed themselves to be identified with the extreme. In a world dominated by shouters, listeners tend to get overwhelmed, and tolerance and equanimity gets portrayed as a weakness rather than a strength.

And now conservatives are actually at the same crossroad; by allowing themselves to be aligned with the extreme right, they are in danger of being identified with ideas that most Americans are uncomfortable with; intolerance and over-governance don't sit well with a lot of people.

Again, among people that I meet in my daily life, there is very little difference in how nice they are. Liberals and conservatives alike are good folks. But it's not hard to tell those at the extremes, the far left and the far right. Because the truth is, the extremes are the province of ideologues, and what ideologues really want is to impose their views on you; ideology is really about power, not ideas.


Tom

Last edited by Mosca; 08-22-2006 at 11:59 AM.
Mosca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2006, 01:04 PM   #14
Jeremy
Banned
 
Jeremy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Great American Southwest
Posts: 3,483
Gender: Male
Member Number: 2579
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Comment on this quote, please

The problem with both conservatives and liberals is their blind loyalty to their parties. The vast majority of conservatives/Republicans in American will blindly defend Tom DeLay. Most of his defenders won't actually produce evidence that he didn't do anything wrong, but rather they'll cite his character and say it's a shame that such a good man is being brought down. In the same spirit, liberals/Democrats will blindly defend Ted Kennedy even though he is little more than an alcoholic. Most of his defenders cite his character and say that his strengths outweigh his flaws.

This is the reason America doesn't vote anymore. The vast majority of moderates are simply sick and tired of the partisan sniping that goes on back and forth. there is no such thing as real compromise. The situation is exacerbated by the radio shock troops like Franken, Beck, and Limbaugh who spew empty rhetoric which drowns out any chance at civil debate in America.
Jeremy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2006, 02:45 PM   #15
Hammer67
Head Coach
Supporter
 
Hammer67's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Boston, MI (originally from Moon Township, PA)
Posts: 1,988
Gender: Male
Member Number: 651
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Comment on this quote, please

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosca
If you step back from the rhetoric and the pundits and examine Clinton's record, you will find that we was actually quite conservative in his policies and the results.

Clinton implemented welfare reform; the days of perpetual welfare have been over for 10 years now. And the results show that more and more Americans who were once "welfare for life" are better off than they were under welfare.

Clinton was extremely responsible fiscally; he cut many boondoggle programs and has been the only president in the last 50 years to actually show a surplus rather than run a deficit. And he responded by cutting taxes.

Say what you will about the man's personal pecadilloes and you'll get no sound out of me, but he was a pretty good president.

And liberals haven't changed, but the definition of liberal has changed, from that of a centrist with inclusive ideas to that of an ivory tower idealist. They've allowed themselves to be defined by those who shout the loudest (on both sides). Most Americans, when asked, have personal ideals that are best described as somewhat liberal. (Not LEFT, but liberal; most Americans are tolerant and inclusive on a personal level. They might say they are against gay marriage, but they have gay friends and relatives and co-workers whom they wouldn't deny rights to.)

The real problem (and there IS a real problem with liberals) is that they have become paralyzed by treating all ideas as equal, and not standing up for what they believe. Conservationism and ecological responsibility are ideas that all Americans can get behind; tree-hugging and ecological terrorism are not. But by not drawing a line, liberals have allowed themselves to be identified with the extreme. In a world dominated by shouters, listeners tend to get overwhelmed, and tolerance and equanimity gets portrayed as a weakness rather than a strength.

And now conservatives are actually at the same crossroad; by allowing themselves to be aligned with the extreme right, they are in danger of being identified with ideas that most Americans are uncomfortable with; intolerance and over-governance don't sit well with a lot of people.

Again, among people that I meet in my daily life, there is very little difference in how nice they are. Liberals and conservatives alike are good folks. But it's not hard to tell those at the extremes, the far left and the far right. Because the truth is, the extremes are the province of ideologues, and what ideologues really want is to impose their views on you; ideology is really about power, not ideas.


Tom
Great post, Tom....

I think you hit the nail on the head. I also thought Clinton was a decent president. The funny thing is, to take it a step deeper, that Clinton even engaged in conflicts without UN consent in Iraq and Bosnia. The very same things his contemporaries are blasting Bush over. Interesting.

I also agree that most people are moderate. You hear the loud ideologues more often because they offer the best soundbites and ratings for the talk shows. It would be nice to see a candiate unaffected by either extreme.
__________________


"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

Hammer67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2006, 08:20 PM   #16
CAH
Bench Warmer
Supporter
 
CAH's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: near Uniontown, PA
Posts: 318
Gender: Female
Member Number: 2409
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Comment on this quote, please

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosca
If you step back from the rhetoric and the pundits and examine Clinton's record, you will find that we was actually quite conservative in his policies and the results.

Clinton implemented welfare reform; the days of perpetual welfare have been over for 10 years now. And the results show that more and more Americans who were once "welfare for life" are better off than they were under welfare.
That isn't true. Clinton vetoed Welfare Reform twice. He was pressured by the Republicans and he had no choice b/c of the arguments that made him feel foolish that he finally signed it. He is now trying to take credit for it.
CAH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2006, 09:26 PM   #17
Stlrs4Life
Tailgate Coordinator
Supporter
 
Stlrs4Life's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New Bedford, Pa
Posts: 5,640
Gender: Male
Member Number: 419
Thanks: 14
Thanked 21 Times in 14 Posts
Default Re: Comment on this quote, please

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAH
That isn't true. Clinton vetoed Welfare Reform twice. He was pressured by the Republicans and he had no choice b/c of the arguments that made him feel foolish that he finally signed it. He is now trying to take credit for it.

He vetoed it because he didn't have certain things added in there that he wanted in there. Not BECAUSE he didn't want welfare reform.
Stlrs4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2006, 09:27 PM   #18
Stlrs4Life
Tailgate Coordinator
Supporter
 
Stlrs4Life's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New Bedford, Pa
Posts: 5,640
Gender: Male
Member Number: 419
Thanks: 14
Thanked 21 Times in 14 Posts
Thumbs up Re: Comment on this quote, please

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosca
If you step back from the rhetoric and the pundits and examine Clinton's record, you will find that we was actually quite conservative in his policies and the results.

Clinton implemented welfare reform; the days of perpetual welfare have been over for 10 years now. And the results show that more and more Americans who were once "welfare for life" are better off than they were under welfare.

Clinton was extremely responsible fiscally; he cut many boondoggle programs and has been the only president in the last 50 years to actually show a surplus rather than run a deficit. And he responded by cutting taxes.

Say what you will about the man's personal pecadilloes and you'll get no sound out of me, but he was a pretty good president.

And liberals haven't changed, but the definition of liberal has changed, from that of a centrist with inclusive ideas to that of an ivory tower idealist. They've allowed themselves to be defined by those who shout the loudest (on both sides). Most Americans, when asked, have personal ideals that are best described as somewhat liberal. (Not LEFT, but liberal; most Americans are tolerant and inclusive on a personal level. They might say they are against gay marriage, but they have gay friends and relatives and co-workers whom they wouldn't deny rights to.)

The real problem (and there IS a real problem with liberals) is that they have become paralyzed by treating all ideas as equal, and not standing up for what they believe. Conservationism and ecological responsibility are ideas that all Americans can get behind; tree-hugging and ecological terrorism are not. But by not drawing a line, liberals have allowed themselves to be identified with the extreme. In a world dominated by shouters, listeners tend to get overwhelmed, and tolerance and equanimity gets portrayed as a weakness rather than a strength.

And now conservatives are actually at the same crossroad; by allowing themselves to be aligned with the extreme right, they are in danger of being identified with ideas that most Americans are uncomfortable with; intolerance and over-governance don't sit well with a lot of people.

Again, among people that I meet in my daily life, there is very little difference in how nice they are. Liberals and conservatives alike are good folks. But it's not hard to tell those at the extremes, the far left and the far right. Because the truth is, the extremes are the province of ideologues, and what ideologues really want is to impose their views on you; ideology is really about power, not ideas.


Tom

Excellent post!
Stlrs4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2006, 08:09 AM   #19
Mosca
Team President
Supporter
 
Mosca's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mountain Top, PA
Posts: 2,397
Gender: Male
Member Number: 1751
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Comment on this quote, please

One of Clinton's platforms for reelection in '96 was welfare reform, and he promised to "end welfare as we know it" in his State of the Union Address in '96. Although the final bill was a compromise and very similar to one that he had rejected twice, the difference wasn't that he was against welfare reform, but that he had differences on the essence of the final form of the bill.

In the end it can be seen as a man willing to compromise for the greater good; the Republicans didn't have the votes to override the veto twice before, but killing it a third time might very well have killed it for good. Clinton took a lot of heat from his own party for signing the bill. My point is that the man was actually quite pragmatic and conservative in his politics.

Tom
Mosca is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Navbar with Avatar by Motorradforum
no new posts