Community Messageboard: maybe so, i prefer to think of it as a holistic view... by moondog

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

maybe so, i prefer to think of it as a holistic view... moondog Send a noteboard - 05/02/2013 03:54:44 PM

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 feel like i already give too much personal information out on this site so i will definitely not be giving specifics on this one. the general point i was trying to get across is the reason i take the budget battles personally, and i will leave it at that.

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.

i consider subverting democracy pretty serious stuff. i don't believe in the death penalty though, so we will have to forgo the pikes for now

but in all seriousness, i think changing the rules to not only favor the GOP but favor them in states where they have a history of winning before obama is beyond sore grapes loser and pushing into "enemy of the state" territory. if the proposal that went through VA and is working its way into PA, OH, MI and FL were pushed in states like TX, TN, KY, GA, AL and others maybe the case could be made that it is not deliberately trying to subvert the system from within.

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'.

i still hold to the position that taking the economy hostage in an effort to cut entitlement programs at the expense of working families and the unemployed to give rich people more tax breaks is hardly "healthy and normal" opposition to the president's policy goals.

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.

did you know "legitimate rape" has its own wikipedia page? and has more than just akin listed on it, although he features as the lead-in to the rest. it's a problem republicans had in 2012 and have had for a number of years. i can still recall when clayton williams was a heartbeat away of becoming governor of texas before he opened his mouth about rape. it's a longtime republican problem, and "legitimate rape" is just the latest incarnation of it.

cynthia mckinney was and still is one of the fringiest office holders on the left, no doubt. i was disappointed to see her run for president as a green, mostly because of her past baggage as an unstable loose cannon. still, she was the best candidate they had, and certainly the only one with the knowledge of running a campaign near the federal level.

as far as VAWA, i don't mind if you disagree with its applications. what i take offense to is when eric cantor says it can only apply to women who are not native americans, immigrants and gay. those are three groups whose history proves they need protection from violence, but cantor wants them excluded. why?

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.

perhaps so. i know we are probably both wasting our time in this back and forth and it still doesn't change anything in the grand scheme of things. for that reason, i am going to give you the last word if you want to take it. i will read whatever you post in reply, but i won't be responding here again.

"The RIAA has shown a certain disregard for the creative people of the industry in their eagerness to protect the revenues of the record companies." -- Frank Zappa

"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman

Reply to message

Here comes another recession - U.S. Economy Unexpectedly Contracts in Q4 -

Anonymous2000 - 30/01/2013 07:50:03 PM 863 Views

Down to the defence spending cuts and inventory restocking halt isn't it? TheCrownless - 30/01/2013 08:43:35 PM 570 Views

Yeah, "good". Sure.....

*NM* Anonymous2000 - 30/01/2013 08:47:57 PM 222 Views

Double post *NM* TheCrownless - 31/01/2013 01:06:12 AM 366 Views

You've changed my mind, of course it was crap. TheCrownless - 31/01/2013 01:06:12 AM 484 Views

Considering the amount of space devoted to the issue of federal spending... Larry - 30/01/2013 08:58:21 PM 509 Views

DK's methods to fix the economy Dark Knight - 30/01/2013 09:00:23 PM 534 Views

I agree with much of that. Legolas - 30/01/2013 10:40:53 PM 699 Views

I don't agree with most of that Isaac - 31/01/2013 02:21:12 PM 528 Views

a couple of issues with your second argument..... moondog - 02/02/2013 06:03:39 PM 492 Views

do you even read these articles before you spout off? moondog - 30/01/2013 09:27:22 PM 486 Views

Still blaming others, not Obama's fault, your messiah is perfect. Got it, thanks!

*NM* Anonymous2000 - 31/01/2013 12:30:19 AM 228 Views

well, i suppose if a tree fell on your head you'd still blame obama for it, so whatever.... *NM* moondog - 31/01/2013 01:04:45 AM 263 Views

He's not half as bad as a lot of people were about Bush, and no worse than you Isaac - 31/01/2013 03:47:32 PM 558 Views

ok, fine. US HOUSE republicans are destroying the economy, not the GOP as a whole moondog - 31/01/2013 06:08:59 PM 687 Views

Re: ok, fine. US HOUSE republicans are destroying the economy, not the GOP as a whole Isaac - 31/01/2013 10:15:57 PM 622 Views

Re: ok, fine. US HOUSE republicans are destroying the economy, not the GOP as a whole moondog - 04/02/2013 10:06:05 PM 527 Views

There's some very rose-colored glasses comments in there Isaac - 05/02/2013 02:53:55 AM 546 Views

maybe so, i prefer to think of it as a holistic view... moondog - 05/02/2013 03:54:44 PM 533 Views

That's understandable but I consider doing so dangerous Isaac - 05/02/2013 09:03:27 PM 490 Views

And here we had Helicopter Ben talking about ending QE earlier than expected Orange - 31/01/2013 10:12:44 AM 638 Views

Yup, welcome to QE 4. Once the artifical pumping ends..... Anonymous2000 - 31/01/2013 01:31:51 PM 491 Views

And next on "Wrong about Everything Theater..." Dannymac - 02/02/2013 04:33:58 PM 541 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="272279">
<quote id="272269"><quote id="272256">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.</quote>

i feel like i already give too much personal information out on this site so i will definitely not be giving specifics on this one.  the general point i was trying to get across is the reason i take the budget battles personally, and i will leave it at that.

<quote><quote>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.  </quote>

i consider subverting democracy pretty serious stuff.  i don't believe in the death penalty though, so we will have to forgo the pikes for now :)  but in all seriousness, i think changing the rules to not only favor the GOP but favor them in states where they have a history of winning before obama is beyond sore grapes loser and pushing into "enemy of the state" territory.  if the proposal that went through VA and is working its way into PA, OH, MI and FL were pushed in states like TX, TN, KY, GA, AL and others maybe the case could be made that it is not deliberately trying to subvert the system from within.

<quote>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'.</quote>

<quote>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.</quote>

cynthia mckinney was and still is one of the fringiest office holders on the left, no doubt.  i was disappointed to see her run for president as a green, mostly because of her past baggage as an unstable loose cannon.  still, she was the best candidate they had, and certainly the only one with the knowledge of running a campaign near the federal level.

as far as VAWA, i don't mind if you disagree with its applications.  what i take offense to is when eric cantor says it can only apply to women who are not native americans, immigrants and gay.  those are three groups whose history proves they need protection from violence, but cantor wants them  excluded.  why?

<quote>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.</quote>

perhaps so.  i know we are probably both wasting our time in this back and forth and it still doesn't change anything in the grand scheme of things.  for that reason, i am going to give you the last word if you want to take it.  i will read whatever you post in reply, but i won't be responding here again.
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password