There's some very rose-colored glasses comments in there
Isaac Send a noteboard - 05/02/2013 02:53:55 AM
i will say first that i took your advice on a "deep breath" before coming back to this. i will also disclose that the federal budget is a personal issue for me since the company i work for is funded through a research program which is always under the knife for some reason or another thanks to the GOP hard-liners in the house. so if you tell me i am being reactionary, then probably i am. because it's kind of ridiculous that my own livelihood is determined by whether or not congressman dingbat can morally object to federally-funded research on religious grounds, even though our work has nothing to do with the usual moral arguments put forth by religious types.
God is a perfectly good reason to not fund a research program, when it is a matter of ethics. I don't know the details and I don't have a quote here so you're making a pretty strong assertion I'm not in a position to discuss or rebut. Religion as motivator is just fine by me, I'm religious, and it depends on the argument, "God frowns on abortion and fetal stem cell research" just isn't the same as "God says the Earth is flat" and I consider 'because God said so' one of the better reasons for moral stances. I need the specifics and if you're unwilling to give them I have to ask you withdraw the point.
I admit I have on occasions snarled "Those damn democrats are..." or "Those lazy liberal are..." insert hyperbole but I usually take the deep breath before saying it allowed, let alone posting it in text, and brush it up a bit too. Your justification seems to be an impossible to pass symbolic bill by the house, of which there are tons by both sides and more importantly by various sub-factions on each side. That's just kind of trivial as an example of 'nefarious behavior'.
symbolic or not, the bill i linked is signed by a who's who of some of the worst the GOP has to offer in regards to public policy. you once said advocating for the de-funding of the federal government amounts to treason, i don't see why this doesn't apply to this situation, whatever the bill's symbolism may stand for.
That's mostly assertion, you consider them the worst. And yes I would view a deliberate attempt to topple the government to be treasonous, and removing its funding without proposing alternative funding or a removal of some of its obligations to be equivalent to that. I don't consider libertarians who want the government to do little else but build roads and maintain a defensive army to be treasonous and you toss the word around to casually.
i also will add that the way the GOP has given its blessing to dividing the EVs of a severely gerrymandered state that obama won in the last 2 elections smacks of treason as well. it sends the message that no matter whether the voters agree with GOP policy, they are going to get GOP "leadership" whether they want it or not. this is no longer a democracy if one party can rig the voting system to always get their way.
Well it isn't treason, and again you're using the term very glibly. You think they are suggesting an EV method which will benefit them, I agree it probably will, but then by that same lights Dem attempts post-2000 to get states to back the winner of the popular vote would be the same thing and also by your reasoning treason. I have never thought let alone voiced such an accusation, that's an extreme charge, to me a traitor is a person to be hunted down, imprisoned, tried, and executed so when you tell me these guys are traitors you're telling me you thing their heads should be decorating pikes.
there is a distinct difference between "flawed policy" and "purposely ignoring facts to try to make a political point that serves no purpose".
Good luck separating those along partisan lines, generally speaking there are precious few things major political parties will back without a bookshelf worth of papers to back it. There are certainly shelves full of economists who approve of tax cuts during slow economic growth.
it goes beyond fiscal policy and enters into science and medicine as well. i have to keep stressing the fact that i don't ascribe sainthood to the dems, but i do share more of their party platform with my own beliefs than the repubs. it's also a fact that dems don't usually try to defund research on religious or "just because i don't like it" grounds. i will grant that the majority of science denying seems to happen from the right wing punditry and rich GOP donors, but it still finds its way into policy at some point.
Rose colored indeed. It is true the left rarely uses religion to defund science and I don't think anyone uses 'just because' but the attitude of the left to Nuclear-anything and GMOs is pretty horrible in my view and it is religious for a lot of them. There may not be an official church of Gaia, Earth-mother, attended on Sundays by the average environmentalist but there are tons of those sorts who are as bad or worse then any anti-science types on the right. Probably worse, the left is convinced it is the party of science, reason, tolerance, and compassion and so when any infections of the opposite crop up they seem to go into severe denial.
on the economic points though, europe has been a very instructive live experiment in governmental austerity during a recession and they are not exactly winning the argument. the EU zone is obviously nothing like the US economy, but the type of austerity they've imposed on their members has enough parallel that we should be learning from their mistakes instead of setting ourselves up to repeat them. preventing the government from functioning until austerity can be implemented is the governmental equivalent of a 5 year old throwing a tantrum because they didn't get what they wanted, then breaking whatever it is they fought so hard to get when it is finally given to them. i guess a case could be made that it's not irrational or insane to act that way, but it comes pretty close in my book.
Key words there "Obviously nothing like the US economy", and the various attempts at austerity have also resulted in governments being replaced and the measures never implemented. You need to get a bit more specific, again, and stop simply saying 'this vague and non-specific case proves my point'. Also, you really need to quit the irrational and insane implications. The GOP does not agree with the current administration's goals, and thus aims to prevent them coming to pass or to strike the best bargain otherwise, that's called 'healthy and normal behavior'.
Again, you think it is my side, most republicans I know say the same about yours, I feel that way too but I choose to assume it is bias on my part, you don't think so. I consider myself a very rational person, just about everyone I know views me as such, and I can't think of anything my party does that I'd call 'crazy', so I choose to assume neither side is crazy. I could say all the things you're saying but flip D for R, problem is I'd feel absurd doing so, again, you don't, and its hard for me to reason with someone who thinks a bunch of people I agree with and support are insane based on the stuff they do, which I primarily agree with, and yet that person apparently thinks I'm sane. So either your view is clouded, or irrational, or you think I'm an absolute idiot who is sane but agrees with crazy people. None of those really lend themselves to a good dialogue.
i guess the difference comes in the fact that, as far as i know, you haven't written a bill de-funding the federal government, or cutting minority women out of the Violence Against Women Act for no discernible reason, or only allowing abortion in the case of "legitimate" rape, or a host of other bills that have come up from the right at the national level which seem to fly in the face of rationality. if you actually agree with the rationale behind the introduction of all of those things, then maybe i have the wrong impression of you from our usually civil dialogues with each other. i have an impression of you that you are not only willing to listen to differing viewpoints but that you can accept the reasoning behind them even if you disagree. i like to think i am a decent judge of this kind of thing, but i am willing to concede i may be wrong if this is indeed the case.
Again, get specific and with citation or stop simply saying this stuff. You raise Akin, how about Cynthia McKinney? You're just ranting, and it's a bit offensive to have my civility and rationality challenged by someone displaying not too much of either. For the record, I am not terribly fond of VAWA and the way it has been used on some things, I am opposed to abortion in cases of rape and incest too, and I have no idea what is a 'legitimate' rape case. When I first heard the term I thought he might be discussing false accusations or low-evidence convictions rather than whatever. You cite someone who found themselves burned at the stake by the GOP within a day of making the remark as though the remark should be held against us, and that's irrational and absurd.
on the flip side, i have an impression of GOP pols -- especially at the national level -- unwilling to listen to reason, and unwilling to accept that they have to find the middle ground between their views and the dems positions in order to get something done that benefits the most people as possible. instead they seem to always introduce legislation that benefits the GOP as a party, rather than the people who supposedly elected them in the first place. the only thing i ask of politicians is that they accept differing viewpoints and the rationale behind them whether they agree or not with the actual principle. i see a lot more of that from dems, with the GOP ready to denounce anyone who disagrees as any slur they can get to stick to the person/group/whatever. i guess the real answer is to get rid of the so-called "tea party" contingent, and come back to the middle, but i'm not going to hold my breath on that happening within the next 10-12 years....
Again you're really just ranting non-specifically, I could replace every word in there with Dem for GOP and Green for TEA and hear a refrain of people who tell me how evil democrats are. I prefer to stick to reality. Democrats and republicans are mostly reasonable and very passionate, and I will not get into the mental trap of thinking my opposition is inferior in terms of morality, sanity, or intelligence. I've never needed to use that sort of crutch to argue my views.
You say you took the deep breath I advised but it seems like you just used it to catch your breath to scream some more.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
Here comes another recession - U.S. Economy Unexpectedly Contracts in Q4 - 
- 30/01/2013 07:50:03 PM
874 Views
- 30/01/2013 07:50:03 PM
874 Views
Down to the defence spending cuts and inventory restocking halt isn't it?
- 30/01/2013 08:43:35 PM
582 Views
*NM*
Considering the amount of space devoted to the issue of federal spending...
- 30/01/2013 08:58:21 PM
525 Views
DK's methods to fix the economy
- 30/01/2013 09:00:23 PM
545 Views
do you even read these articles before you spout off?
- 30/01/2013 09:27:22 PM
503 Views
Still blaming others, not Obama's fault, your messiah is perfect. Got it, thanks! 
*NM*
- 31/01/2013 12:30:19 AM
233 Views
*NM*
- 31/01/2013 12:30:19 AM
233 Views
well, i suppose if a tree fell on your head you'd still blame obama for it, so whatever.... *NM*
- 31/01/2013 01:04:45 AM
268 Views
He's not half as bad as a lot of people were about Bush, and no worse than you
- 31/01/2013 03:47:32 PM
569 Views
ok, fine. US HOUSE republicans are destroying the economy, not the GOP as a whole
- 31/01/2013 06:08:59 PM
699 Views
Re: ok, fine. US HOUSE republicans are destroying the economy, not the GOP as a whole
- 31/01/2013 10:15:57 PM
634 Views
Re: ok, fine. US HOUSE republicans are destroying the economy, not the GOP as a whole
- 04/02/2013 10:06:05 PM
540 Views
There's some very rose-colored glasses comments in there
- 05/02/2013 02:53:55 AM
562 Views
And here we had Helicopter Ben talking about ending QE earlier than expected
- 31/01/2013 10:12:44 AM
650 Views