-
Perfectio wrote on 2013-10-03 00:08
Quote from TLCBonaparte;1155146:
I will be straight with you. I am a libertarian.
I
>libertarian
>giving me a lecture on critical thinking
Man this is rich. I'm not a fan of the Dems but only because they capitulate to free market theology too often. But you come from a position that literally says THE FREE MARKET FAIRY WILL FIX EVERYTHING!!!!111 RON PAUL RELOVEUTOON!!. I used to be one of those people. You have to suspend logic in order to ignore the inherent moral depravity and practical unworkability of the ideology.
And like I said, right-wingers CAN NOT BE REASONED with because their ideology is not based on facts, but a secular theology. You in particular speak from a standpoint that says democratic governance and the welfare state is evil and wrong, so don't speak to me about being biased.
Your position on this issue seems to be "the facts say stuff but we should ignore those and consider both sides even if one side is nuts".
-
TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-10-03 00:16
Quote from Perfectio;1155158:
I
>libertarian
>giving me a lecture on critical thinking
Man this is rich. I'm not a fan of the Dems but only because they capitulate to free market theology too often. But you come from a position that literally says THE FREE MARKET FAIRY WILL FIX EVERYTHING!!!!111 RON PAUL RELOVEUTOON!!. I used to be one of those people. You have to suspend logic in order to ignore the inherent moral depravity and practical unworkability of the ideology.
And like I said, right-wingers CAN NOT BE REASONED with because their ideology is not based on facts, but a secular theology. You in particular speak from a standpoint that says democratic governance and the welfare state is evil and wrong, so don't speak to me about being biased.
Your position on this issue seems to be "the facts say stuff but we should ignore those and consider both sides even if one side is nuts".
Did you actually read my post?
-
Perfectio wrote on 2013-10-03 00:28
Yes, I read it, I just find the idea of a libertarian telling me about critical thinking hilarious. And you're ignoring my point - right wing ideology has become so virulent as to threaten national security, and I see no reason why an organized society should accept this. We don't let people openly adovcate jihad, do we?
-
M wrote on 2013-10-03 00:41
I'm all for a political debate, but let's keep it civil. Let's focus on the original topic and not target, insult, or belittle one another in the process.
-
Kaeporo wrote on 2013-10-03 00:58
Quote from TLCBonaparte;1155146:
I will be straight with you. I am a libertarian. I don't like Republicans OR Democrat. It is also important not to fall into false polarization, which means consider a person who belongs to a group encompass every thing said group represent. There are pro-life democrats and republicans who support Obama care. This "Either with me or against me" attitude is not helping anyone.
Another thing you should consider is: Should you really ship people with different opinions out? That's a dangerous line of thinking which could lead to the thoughts of dictator. Yes it's easier ship these people out, but everyone have different views, even if you shipped right wing people out, some other issues will come up and there will be people with opinion you consider dangerous for the well-being of the country.
Dismiss nothing, consider everything fairly, hear both sides of the story. That's the wise thing to do. It may be painful to examine things you consider utterly stupid, but even broken clock is right twice a day, even fools can be right sometime.
This.
One of America's greatest strengths is its diverse culture. The inability to properly demonstrate critical thinking skills isn't just a failure to adapt, it's a crying shame which leaves deep wounds that take years to heal.
-
Perfectio wrote on 2013-10-03 01:22
All this handwringing over free speech (something that the right wing never cares about when its on the offensive) ignores the fact that we consider certain political opinions malum en se, verboten to start.
In Europe being a Nazi js basically illegal, regardless of actual actions. Most European governments have decided that fascism is so dangerous to their society that the rights of fascists must be suppressed. Being an open jihadist may not be strictly illegal but advocating jihad will get a drone up your a Jihad is so dangerous to this society that the rights of jihadis are suppressed. I submit that ALL right wing ideologies be placed in this category. Continuing ti pretend that "conservatism" is just another legitimate ideology in a pluralistic society is disingenuous in light of the destruction and human suffering it has caused, the shutdown being just the latest example. Unless you think that making a million people unemployed and depriving the poor of food is a legitimate political tactic.
-
Natural Harmonia Gropius wrote on 2013-10-03 01:27
[Image: http://31.media.tumblr.com/d66db7cbd752bfa8814ee4ef5265cfb6/tumblr_mu2jxvKBX21qzxzwwo1_500.jpg]
-
TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-10-03 01:37
Quote from Perfectio;1155178:
All this handwringing over free speech (something that the right wing never cares about when its on the offensive) ignores the fact that we consider certain political opinions malum en se, verboten to start.
In Europe being a Nazi js basically illegal, regardless of actual actions. Most European governments have decided that fascism is so dangerous to their society that the rights of fascists must be suppressed. Being an open jihadist may not be strictly illegal but advocating jihad will get a drone up your a Jihad is so dangerous to this society that the rights of jihadis are suppressed. I submit that ALL right wing ideologies be placed in this category. Continuing ti pretend that "conservatism" is just another legitimate ideology in a pluralistic society is disingenuous in light of the destruction and human suffering it has caused, the shutdown being just the latest example. Unless you think that making a million people unemployed and depriving the poor of food is a legitimate political tactic.
No one is stopping you from speaking freely. The point of free speech is so people can communicate their points and maybe learn something new about each others' perspective. Which we are doing now. If we all just shut up and you alone talk your opinion out then leave, that actually defeats the point of free speech.
As I been trying to tell you, titles are sometime meaningless, people associate with "democrat", "republican" can have ideas vastly different from the idea said party hold. Heck, when President Lincoln was in the white house, republican is the progressive party and democrat is the one being racist assholes. Would you ship those republicans who helped free slaves out of the country?
-
truefire wrote on 2013-10-03 03:47
This is not the first time the government has ceased operations; there have been 18 times in the past 37 years that this has happened. The last time before this was actually during the Clinton administration, and that lasted for 21 days (26 days actually, as there was a shorter term shutdown that happened that same year about a month and a half prior). Of course, that was in a significantly less polarized time and not in the middle of a recession, so take from that what you will. On the other hand, we've gone almost 18 years since the last shutdown, and from 1976 to 1990 a shutdown happened almost every year so you can also take from that what you will.
The point is, it's not like the act in itself has no precedence, and it has actually been facilitated during presidential terms where both parties monopolized dominance in both the House and Senate. I don't know what resolution will be reached, but I don't expect this situation to last anywhere near a month (it honestly can't afford to right now). If it does (well, if it even lasts half that long), that's when I'd start worrying. I'd also start worrying if another shutdown happens immediately after the first, something that was also a precedent during Clinton's first term.
Relax, and wait to see how long it takes for the shutdown to end, and where we stand when that happens. What the shutdown achieves in the end is far more important than it happening at all, regardless of whether or not you feel it had to happen (for the record, I feel it didn't), or regardless of who you feel was at fault for it (both sides, really, and this considering I feel the Republicans are throwing what amounts to a really loud temper tantrum instead of something that will actually get shit done).
-
tsunoh wrote on 2013-10-03 11:37
I may not be American myself, but my aunt is a doctor who works there. 24 hours on the job, and having difficulty finding doctors when they themselves get sick? I think that's bloody harsh.
Who's going to pick up the slack when Obamacare pushes through? If it does, that is.
-
Perfectio wrote on 2013-10-03 11:47
For those "both sides did it", what did the Democrats actually do to contribute to this situation, other than refuse to cave to open blackmail?
-
TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-10-03 16:14
And like you said, they didn't back down. That's a fault in my book. They don't have to force the bill through right away. Compromise require something from both parties.
And I clarify, me pointing that out as a fault does not mean I support what republicans are doing. They are wrong, but a conflict isn't always 1 right 1 wrong, it often time consist of two wrongs and both sides pointing out opposition's wrong while remain oblivious to their own mistakes.
-
Space Pirate Nithiel wrote on 2013-10-03 16:30
Quote from TLCBonaparte;1155342:
And like you said, they didn't back down. That's a fault in my book. They don't have to force the bill through right away. Compromise require something from both parties.
They aren't forcing anything through. The bill has already passed and been judged by the supreme court to be constitutional in every way. This is just the republicans throwing a fit because they don't agree and want it revoked. So all the democrats are doing is saying "No Republicans, you can't go against the constitution and remove a valid law just because you don't like it."
-
TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-10-03 16:33
Quote from Space Pirate Nithiel;1155344:
They aren't forcing anything through. The bill has already passed and been judged by the supreme court to be constitutional in every way. This is just the republicans throwing a fit because they don't agree and want it revoked. So all the democrats are doing is saying "No Republicans, you can't go against the constitution and remove a valid law just because you don't like it."
That's not what Obama said during the announcement. But I can't be 100% sure.
-
Kingofrunes wrote on 2013-10-03 16:41
Quote from TLCBonaparte;1155342:
Could you stop with the insults? If you want to have a discussion with people, at least have the basic respect towards others. Insults only brings about more insults. Then you have a fight on your hand, and that doesn't help push your point across.
And like you said, they didn't back down. That's a fault in my book. They don't have to force the bill through right away. Compromise require something from both parties.
And I clarify, me pointing that out as a fault does not mean I support what republicans are doing. They are wrong, but a conflict isn't always 1 right 1 wrong, it often time consist of two wrongs and both sides pointing out opposition's wrong while remain oblivious to their own mistakes.
This is exactly what I was trying to point out earlier. Looks like reason like this is falling on deaf ears though.