Started By
Message
re: Off Topic: Governor's race. Walt Maddox vs. Kay Ivey
Posted on 10/5/18 at 1:33 am to imjustafatkid
Posted on 10/5/18 at 1:33 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
It's a joke that you think legalized abortion is comparable to removing government regulations.
I never presented any arguement for or against abortion, nor did I express any of my views on it. My point was explicitly poking fun at the idea that Doug Jones being pro-choice alone makes him far left. The comment in no way was a serious reflection of the topic of abortion, and I have no intention of engaging in that dialogue in this thread. I will say though that your point about it having nothing to do with regulations because the states used to choose the nature of those regulations doesnt make much sense. Even murder, in terms of being a punishiable offense is a government regulation. All of our laws are, as that is the nature of the social contract.
quote:
Are you attempting to say the Democrats aren't becoming more progressive and socialist?
Bernie's run certainly suggests that they may be, but so far it hasn't amounted to remotely any policy of significance, other than gay marriage, which really was decided in the (republican) SCOTUS, so it isn't even really reflective of democratic policy. I was throwing you a bone with that one.
quote:
The problem is with calling it marriage. There was an easy way to fix this "problem," but we never took it because the fight wasn't really about helping people it was about destroying institutions
I'd argue that it was more about preserving equality and maintaining the seperation of church and state.
quote:
but instead we did something authoritarian
Can you describe what was authoritarian about that ruling?
quote:
Socialism is always highlighted by forcing people to pay for something
No, it is defined by public ownership of an industry, which the ACA was void of.
The definition of socialism:a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
On a side note, I think it is pretty lame for you to call me ignorant when I haven't been rude to you at all, especially considering that you are using the term in a way that fails to meet the definition. I guess that I'm sorry that me sharing a different perspective offends you so much.
Had the public option been kept, there would have been a socialist element to the act, but even then, the ownership of goods and services would have been overwhelming private and the public option would have served as a regulatory competitor.
I don't believe that food stamps fall into the definition of socialism, though policies od that kind certainly fall in the middle of socialism and the free market.
quote:
You think globalism and socialism are at odds?
Yes, in most cases. Globalism, as we typically see in America, is market globalism which
quote:. Market Globalism is supported by corporations (private), which makes it inherently at odds with socialism (public).
is a synergistic term combining the promotion and selling of (typically private) goods and services with an increasingly interdependent and integrated global economy. It makes companies stateless, without walls
quote:
clueless socialist brethren in this country that we shouldn't have borders here
Open borders is not a popular idea and almost universally rejected by politicians on both sides.
quote:
You don't think the ACA is socialist, so I'm sure you don't believe there are any.
That statement suggests to me that other than the ACA, which I have shown to not be socialist, you can't think of another policy that would fit that definition.
quote:
Every time they call to "stop separating children at the border" they are calling for a significant change to our immigration system
They are speaking out against a new policy that Trump enacted. They are responding to a change.
quote:
They changed the way deportations were counted during O's presidency, or this would not be the case. Your above quote can only be true if the full picture is presented. Without that full picture, your statement is incredibly misleading and can only be viewed as a lie.
Feel free to "present the full picture". Obama drastically ramped up deportations of violent criminals and in most cases increased penalties by moving them into formal proceedings, as opposed to encouraging voluntary deportation. Obama expanded our border patrol resrources as president and even voted for Bush's fence expansion when he was a senator.
quote:
We don't have strict immigration policies.
Yet so many people live here illegally despite being in constant fear for their family and their well being. Why do you think that is? What makes you think that we have lax immigration policies?
quote:
A vote for socialism is a vote to turn our country into a third world nation. No issue with his statement there. Democrats are becoming more and more unAmerican every day
I think that this kind of thinking, blind hatred of other ideas that the people hating can't even correctly define, is the largest threat our country is facing today. This polarization comes directly from both partys' unwillingness to compromise and operate our government as it is intended to be ran. The longer this continues, the less strength and stability our state will have. We will continue to have an increasingly difficult time managing our problems, and the only people who benifit from it are the other countries compete against.
The reality is that neither raw side of the political and economic spectrum works on its own, and our job as citizens participating in democracy is to find the right mix in context to the variables that we have to account for. I'm very much on the left when it comes to most (not all, I'm probably more moderate-right on foreign policy) issues, as you have obviously picked up on, but I also think that is extremely vauable to have alternative voices in our government. I want us to use our government as a tool to for us to get together and solve problems, but I also want fiscal conaervatives to come into those conversations and help us make sure we do those things responsibly.
Our country, more than ever, needs us to come together and value our different perspectives and find compromise within them. It's incredibly difficult, especially with forces like the media that feeds off of ratings (and as a result, our polarization) to such an extent that they no longer serve their purpose: helping us stay informed.
We're all being played by these forces, whether it is politicians or the media or coeporations, but we gotta look past that shite and see that there is reason and compelling points on both sides that are valuable.
I just typed a lot of shite on my phone over a few smokes so sorry if there are any spelling/typing errors.
This post was edited on 10/5/18 at 1:41 am
1
Posted on 10/5/18 at 6:20 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Many Republicans never had a problem with gay unions. I believe people should be allowed to enter into any contracts they want. The problem is with calling it marriage. There was an easy way to fix this "problem," but we never took it because the fight wasn't really about helping people it was about destroying institutions. We could have fixed this issue and gotten rid of the marriage tax penalty all at once, but instead we did something authoritarian and nonsensical
Allowing gay marriage didn't destroy any institution. It had zero impact on your or anyone else's current, future, or past mixed sex marriage.
This post was edited on 10/5/18 at 6:22 am
Posted on 10/5/18 at 6:36 am to pvilleguru
quote:
Allowing gay marriage didn't destroy any institution. It had zero impact on your or anyone else's current, future, or past mixed sex marriage.
If people truly believed this, a better solution would have been pursued.
Posted on 10/5/18 at 6:46 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
If people truly believed this, a better solution would have been pursued
That's fricking bullshite. So y'all are ok with gay people getting the same benefits but just don't want to let them call it marriage? That's called discrimination.
Posted on 10/5/18 at 7:01 am to pvilleguru
Now if you have an issue with the rights and/or benefits of married people, that's still on the table.
This post was edited on 10/5/18 at 8:40 am
Posted on 10/5/18 at 7:09 am to Fells
quote:
Even murder, in terms of being a punishiable offense is a government regulation. All of our laws are, as that is the nature of the social contract.
You will not find a conservative who is against laws that protect the rights of others. In this case, the right to life.
quote:
Bernie's run certainly suggests that they may be, but so far it hasn't amounted to remotely any policy of significance, other than gay marriage, which really was decided in the (republican) SCOTUS, so it isn't even really reflective of democratic policy. I was throwing you a bone with that one.
Well great, let's vote in more Democratic Socialists then. That will fix everything.
quote:
Can you describe what was authoritarian about that ruling?
Easy. It is a ruling that requires everyone to accept gay marriage. You can see the authoritarianism in the rulings against Christians who do not want to participate in celebrations of actions they've deemed sinful. We decided some people's choice to marry is more important than other people's religious believes, which makes a mockery of religious freedom. That is what this fight was always about, because if all they wanted was equality, there were far better solutions.
quote:
No, it is defined by public ownership of an industry, which the ACA was void of.
Going a long way to redefine socialism here. You don't think forcing a purchase is a way to control the means of production? Our country goes bankrupt either way. If you'd prefer we call it fascist then I'm fine with that. You're just splitting hairs here. Meaningless argument really.
Then again, your own definition kind of destroys your argument here:
quote:
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Forcing purchase IS controlling exchange...
quote:
That statement suggests to me that other than the ACA, which I have shown to not be socialist, you can't think of another policy that would fit that definition.
Good thing Republicans kept the House and Senate for most of Obama's two terms. Dems only had time to pass one socialist policy. Let's not pretend the Democrat Party isn't overtly socialist. Incredibly misleading. Do I have to link their platform for you to end this line of reasoning? They have been unsuccessful because of Republicans, not because of a lack of effort.
quote:
Open borders is not a popular idea and almost universally rejected by politicians on both sides.
Oh come on. This is clearly false. Not even worth debating.
quote:
needs us to come together and value our different perspectives and find compromise within them.
Compromise to Democrats means doing everything they want. I'm done wirh their type of compromise. Easy example: if Kavanaugh had been nominated by Hillary, we wouldn't still be talking about him today. He's be confirmed. Republicans' willingness to meet in the continuously left-shifting "middle" is destroying our country.
This post was edited on 10/5/18 at 9:04 am
Posted on 10/5/18 at 7:16 am to imjustafatkid
quote:Holy shite.
It is a ruling that requires everyone to accept gay marriage. You can see the authoritarianism in the rulings against Christians who do not want to participate in celebrations of actions they've deemed sinful. We decided some people's choice to marry is more important than other people's religious believes, which makes a mockery of religious freedom.
Posted on 10/5/18 at 8:08 am to pvilleguru
quote:
That's fricking bullshite.
Of course it is. There was a strong push for allowing gay civil unions in the 90's that was opposed by almost every Republican. And yes, it was opposed by some Democrats as well. I don't pretend that Democrats have long been advocates for gay rights. It's a recent evolution of their beliefs over the last 15-20 years.
Posted on 10/5/18 at 9:03 am to pvilleguru
quote:
That's fricking bullshite. So y'all are ok with gay people getting the same benefits but just don't want to let them call it marriage? That's called discrimination.
Nah, they should have just gotten the government out of marriage completely. Everyone would have been on board with that solution, but compromise truly isn't a goal.
Glad that I can get the partisans to show themselves though.
ETA:
quote:
Holy shite.
This is the type of reaction people give when they know facts don't align with their views.
This post was edited on 10/5/18 at 9:05 am
Posted on 10/5/18 at 9:06 am to The Spleen
quote:
Of course it is. There was a strong push for allowing gay civil unions in the 90's that was opposed by almost every Republican. And yes, it was opposed by some Democrats as well. I don't pretend that Democrats have long been advocates for gay rights. It's a recent evolution of their beliefs over the last 15-20 years.
Wouldn't be an issue at all if the federal government had never gotten involved in marriage in the first place. We all missed a great opportunity during the "gay marriage" expansion of the federal government. We had the opportunity to actually remove some government power, and instead increased it.
Posted on 10/5/18 at 9:09 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
they should have just gotten the government out of marriage completely
Getting the government to not recognize marriage is a valid opinion, but as long as the government does recognize marriage, then it's their right to be able to take part in it.
Posted on 10/5/18 at 9:09 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
We had the opportunity to actually remove some government power, and instead increased it.
You still have that opportunity.
Posted on 10/5/18 at 9:10 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
This is the type of reaction people give when they know facts don't align with their views.
You didn't post a fact.
Posted on 10/5/18 at 9:11 am to pvilleguru
quote:
Getting the government to not recognize marriage is a valid opinion, but as long as the government does recognize marriage, then it's their right to be able to take part in it.
Oh well this is simply a misconstruction of the facts. Everyone was able to participate in marriage prior to the Supreme Court ruling, and everyone could participate in marriage after.
Nevermind that the government will absolutely never get out of the marriage business now that it has completely taken that power from the states. That gay marriage ruling was terrible in many, many ways and it will have to be applied to other things before many of you realize it.
Posted on 10/5/18 at 9:12 am to pvilleguru
quote:
You still have that opportunity.
Yeah, because the United States populace has a grand history of removing power from our federal government. People like the fact that this gives them what they view as a "legal" way to persecute Christians. It will never go away.
This post was edited on 10/5/18 at 9:13 am
Posted on 10/5/18 at 9:13 am to pvilleguru
quote:
You didn't post a fact.
At least, not one you could dispute.
Posted on 10/5/18 at 9:20 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
People like the fact that this gives them what they view as a "legal" way to persecute Christians
This isn't persecuting Christians. This has nothing to do with Christians.
Posted on 10/5/18 at 9:21 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Wouldn't be an issue at all if the federal government had never gotten involved in marriage in the first place.
Well, blame our racist ancestors for that. Government started sanctioning marriages to prevent whites and blacks from marrying.
quote:
We all missed a great opportunity during the "gay marriage" expansion of the federal government. We had the opportunity to actually remove some government power, and instead increased it.
Maybe, but so many other laws are tied up in the recognition of marriage, and I'm not sure we were really ready to unpack all of that. Contract law, estate laws, custodial laws, tax laws, etc.
Posted on 10/5/18 at 9:23 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Oh well this is simply a misconstruction of the facts. Everyone was able to participate in marriage prior to the Supreme Court ruling, and everyone could participate in marriage after.
This is like saying that black people were allowed to send their kids to integrated schools prior to Brown v. Board of Education because they could have moved to a state like Massachusetts to do it. Yes, a lesbian technically could have married a man just like any other woman was allowed to, but that is really not the point at all.
Posted on 10/5/18 at 9:24 am to Robot Santa
quote:
This is like saying that black people were allowed to send their kids to integrated schools prior to Brown v. Board of Education because they could have moved to a state like Massachusetts to do it.
No, marriage choices actually aren't like the color of your skin at all.
Page 19 of 29
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News