Started By
Message
re: Off Topic: Republican Bama fans - would you vote for Tubberville in the Senate primary?
Posted on 4/9/19 at 3:38 pm to pvilleguru
Posted on 4/9/19 at 3:38 pm to pvilleguru
I just want to throw out, that while I appreciate meaniningful debate as much as the next person, Fatkid explicitly stated that anti-discimination laws are authoritarian. I don't think there is much room in his worldview for rational discussion.
1
Posted on 4/9/19 at 3:47 pm to Fells
quote:
Fatkid explicitly stated that anti-discimination laws are authoritarian.
They are. People should be allowed to freely associate with whomever they wish. It's all about how authoritarian you want the government to be.
quote:
I don't think there is much room in his worldview for rational discussion.
You're the one refusing to accept the basic reality that forced association is authoritarian.
This post was edited on 4/9/19 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 4/9/19 at 3:50 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Name one major issue where he has split with Democrat leadership.
He voted in favor of of relaxing banking regulations. He and Manchin were the one two Dems to do so.
Despite all the braying from conservatives, Jones has a pretty moderate record. About as moderate as you can be in today's climate. He's going to get trounced in 2020 unless state conservatives are dumb enough to let Roy Moore win again, and I'm not so sure he beats him again. But it's amazing to watch people paint him as in lockstep with the Dem leadership and a radical leftist.
Posted on 4/9/19 at 3:55 pm to InGAButLoveBama
quote:
If the GOP establishment was smart, it would support Mo Brooks, but it is not, so it will support Byrne or some other tired pick. Backing Strange over Brooks was one of Trump's first huge mistakes.
Totally agree with all of this. Although I will absolutely support whomever wins the Republican primary over Doug Jones in the general.
quote:
Where are the EOs on Birthright Citizenship? The taxing of remittances to pay for the wall?
This has been the most frustrating thing so far, although I don't really care how the wall is paid for. I just want it built. It's a net economic gain for the country no matter how it gets built.
Posted on 4/9/19 at 3:56 pm to The Spleen
quote:
About as moderate as you can be in today's climate.
A moderate Democrat from the state of Alabama should look a lot more like Jim Webb than Doug Jones.
Posted on 4/9/19 at 3:59 pm to imjustafatkid
The government protecting the rights of everyone to have fair and equal access to services is not authoritarian. By your defintion, almost every policy and regulation is inherently authoritarian.
Anti-discrimination laws do not fall under limited political pluralism, or vast and ambiguous exectutive powers.
Anti-discrimination laws do not fall under limited political pluralism, or vast and ambiguous exectutive powers.
Posted on 4/9/19 at 4:00 pm to pvilleguru
quote:
adding some language to a bill that would allow it only in cases to save a life would be extremely tricky
There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother. Maternal health risks that require treatments that cause the death of the unborn child have NEVER been illegal, and are not abortions.
This post was edited on 4/9/19 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 4/9/19 at 4:04 pm to Fells
quote:
The government protecting the rights of everyone to have fair and equal access to services is not authoritarian.
Of course it is. There's a reason you can't describe this as "free" as well as "fair and equal." It's because it's authoritarian. If you took the time to think of it honestly, you'd realize that all these policies do is keep bigots in business by forcing them to keep their views private.
quote:
By your defintion, almost every policy and regulation is inherently authoritarian.
Most policies these days are an effort by the federal government to take power from the states, so...yes. You're correct.
Posted on 4/9/19 at 4:10 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother.
That would be news to my sister who had to have a pregnancy ended early because of a serious medical condition.
Posted on 4/9/19 at 4:17 pm to The Spleen
quote:
That would be news to my sister who had to have a pregnancy ended early because of a serious medical condition.
You left off the rest of my post.
quote:
Maternal health risks that require treatments that cause the death of the unborn child have NEVER been illegal, and are not abortions.
I'm not saying these situations don't exist, I'm saying actually medically necessary procedures have never been illegal, and never will be, so they aren't part of the conversation. Adding them to the conversation is just an attempt to lead people away from the reality of the situation.
This post was edited on 4/9/19 at 4:18 pm
Posted on 4/9/19 at 4:31 pm to imjustafatkid
Yeah, the treatment the doctor prescribed to save my sister's life was an abortion. I doubt he used that exact word, but since he practiced at a hospital affiliated with the Catholic church, she ended up having to go to an abortion clinic to have the procedure performed and endure the heartless chants from pro-life protesters in the parking lot. This after 3 years of trying to conceive and finally getting pregnant. Save the semantics for someone else.
And I disagree that they never will be illegal. If many pro-life advocates had their way, they would be illegal.
Anyway, no use polluting this board with abortion talk. I'm out.
And I disagree that they never will be illegal. If many pro-life advocates had their way, they would be illegal.
Anyway, no use polluting this board with abortion talk. I'm out.
Posted on 4/9/19 at 4:52 pm to The Spleen
if it came down to tubs and the fullblown democrat jones, sure i'd vote tubs.
as it is right now. i'll never vote for an america hating democrat.
as it is right now. i'll never vote for an america hating democrat.
Posted on 4/9/19 at 5:54 pm to The Spleen
quote:
she ended up having to go to an abortion clinic to have the procedure performed
If this is the case, it wasn't medically necessary.
quote:
And I disagree that they never will be illegal. If many pro-life advocates had their way, they would be illegal.
Nope. Literally no one is advocating for this.
Posted on 4/9/19 at 11:24 pm to imjustafatkid
Posted on 4/10/19 at 6:52 am to Roll Tide Ravens
If he's the Republican on the ticket I will.
I don't dislike Tubberville,and I'm certainly not voting Democrat.
I don't dislike Tubberville,and I'm certainly not voting Democrat.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 11:57 am to imjustafatkid
You intebtially ignored the meat of my post, which is pretty funny. I'll spell it out for you though.
Everything that limits freedom is not authoritarian. Authortarianism is defined by the lack of political parties, policy making void of a rational congregation of the population and ambiguous executive power that massively supersedes any other government influence.
Anti-discrimination legislation start in the legislative bodies, and are upheld by the courts, which is in direct conflict with the premise of authoritarianism. The U.S's executive branch is the weakest of the three branches.
Ah yes, Alabama did a wonderful job voting with their dollar during segregation. The reality is, people who are against anti-discrimination laws and policies just don't want to have to serve minorities, making those minorities second class citizens.
I think that displays your confusion best. Firstly, most policies and regulatuons restrict freedom (social contract, basis of civilaztion, all that stuff), regardless if they come from a state's legislative branch or Capitol Hill. The majority of our population getting together and saying "We aren't going to allow business to not serve black people or gays, and if you live in the south and want to do that then that sucks for you.", and forcing fair service policies on businesses is no different than the majority of the population of a state enforcing a similar will on a county or township. You are drawing an arbitrary line because you are an anti-federalist, but you aren't equiped enough in terms of political thought so you use a buzzword that you don't understand to rationalize your thoughts.
If all restrictive policies were authoritarian, we wouldn't have a term for it. Authortarianism and government would be synonymous. We make a distinction for a reason. Misusing terms to defend yourself from hating gay or black people and wanting whatever group to be second class citizens is dangerous, unethical, and probably not how Jesus, the root of your issues with gay people, would want you to live your life.
Everything that limits freedom is not authoritarian. Authortarianism is defined by the lack of political parties, policy making void of a rational congregation of the population and ambiguous executive power that massively supersedes any other government influence.
Anti-discrimination legislation start in the legislative bodies, and are upheld by the courts, which is in direct conflict with the premise of authoritarianism. The U.S's executive branch is the weakest of the three branches.
quote:
these policies do is keep bigots in business by forcing them to keep their views private
Ah yes, Alabama did a wonderful job voting with their dollar during segregation. The reality is, people who are against anti-discrimination laws and policies just don't want to have to serve minorities, making those minorities second class citizens.
quote:
Most policies these days are an effort by the federal government to take power from the states
I think that displays your confusion best. Firstly, most policies and regulatuons restrict freedom (social contract, basis of civilaztion, all that stuff), regardless if they come from a state's legislative branch or Capitol Hill. The majority of our population getting together and saying "We aren't going to allow business to not serve black people or gays, and if you live in the south and want to do that then that sucks for you.", and forcing fair service policies on businesses is no different than the majority of the population of a state enforcing a similar will on a county or township. You are drawing an arbitrary line because you are an anti-federalist, but you aren't equiped enough in terms of political thought so you use a buzzword that you don't understand to rationalize your thoughts.
If all restrictive policies were authoritarian, we wouldn't have a term for it. Authortarianism and government would be synonymous. We make a distinction for a reason. Misusing terms to defend yourself from hating gay or black people and wanting whatever group to be second class citizens is dangerous, unethical, and probably not how Jesus, the root of your issues with gay people, would want you to live your life.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 12:26 pm to Fells
quote:
You intebtially ignored the meat of my post, which is pretty funny. I'll spell it out for you though.
The only portion of your post that I didn't quote is below. THIS is "meat?"
quote:
Anti-discrimination laws do not fall under limited political pluralism, or vast and ambiguous exectutive powers.
quote:
Authortarianism is defined by the lack of political parties, policy making void of a rational congregation of the population and ambiguous executive power that massively supersedes any other government influence.
False. This is the definition of authoritarianism:
quote:
the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
-lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others.
Everything after your incorrect definition of authoritarianism is based on your misunderstanding of what authoritarianism is. Gain an understanding of authoritarianism, and then we'll talk.
ETA: You clearly don't understand what you're talking about here, man. I really don't feel like schooling you on the issue, so please just do some research into your claims and stop pretending to know what you're talking about.
This post was edited on 4/10/19 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 4/10/19 at 5:52 pm to imjustafatkid
Yeah, that's the meat. It's the dependent variables that define authoritarianism , of which you intentionally ignore.
You taking the MW definition of authoritarianism is trying to describe a complex idea within political philosophy into a tweet. You clearly have not read anything past that, and that is why you can't distinguish the difference between government and authoritarianism. What is hialrious is that if you used any critical thinking skills, you would question why we would make a distinction between the two, but then you would have to challenge your uneducated world view. I mean, if you aren't going to actually research the concept, at least read the wikipedia page. I can't imagine holding such strong convictions about something and never even giving a real attempt to understand it.
Good luck schooling be on the issue. I already have a degree in political science, and the odds that you have spent more time exploring the subject is extremely unlikely.
What you dislike it federalism. There is a reason why authoritarianism and federalism are not synomous. I think what you are confused about is that: since authoritarianism relies on an absurdly powerful executive, it inherently involves a great deal of centralized power. That doesn't mean that any government built with a strong centralized foundation is authoritarianism. In the same way, a lack of centralized power does not inherently mean the system is anarchist.
My acknowledgment of authortarianism neccesating 1) limited political representation, 2) ambigous and vast executive powers (which is the key here) 3) policy making without reasoned debate is absolutely accurate and anyone who has spent any time studying modern political thought would agree, as do *all* relevant and important texts. The SCOTUS rulings, legislative policy making and constitutional amendments that promote an anti-discriminatory society are by no means authoritarian, as they are not the result of a dictator or executive decision. Sure sounds like you've never read The Prince, Doctrine of Fascism, any Giovani Gentile or any texts on the subject at all. Maybe audit some classes at the local community college, it would be benifical, assuming strongly holding on to political opinions is important to you.
You taking the MW definition of authoritarianism is trying to describe a complex idea within political philosophy into a tweet. You clearly have not read anything past that, and that is why you can't distinguish the difference between government and authoritarianism. What is hialrious is that if you used any critical thinking skills, you would question why we would make a distinction between the two, but then you would have to challenge your uneducated world view. I mean, if you aren't going to actually research the concept, at least read the wikipedia page. I can't imagine holding such strong convictions about something and never even giving a real attempt to understand it.
Good luck schooling be on the issue. I already have a degree in political science, and the odds that you have spent more time exploring the subject is extremely unlikely.
What you dislike it federalism. There is a reason why authoritarianism and federalism are not synomous. I think what you are confused about is that: since authoritarianism relies on an absurdly powerful executive, it inherently involves a great deal of centralized power. That doesn't mean that any government built with a strong centralized foundation is authoritarianism. In the same way, a lack of centralized power does not inherently mean the system is anarchist.
My acknowledgment of authortarianism neccesating 1) limited political representation, 2) ambigous and vast executive powers (which is the key here) 3) policy making without reasoned debate is absolutely accurate and anyone who has spent any time studying modern political thought would agree, as do *all* relevant and important texts. The SCOTUS rulings, legislative policy making and constitutional amendments that promote an anti-discriminatory society are by no means authoritarian, as they are not the result of a dictator or executive decision. Sure sounds like you've never read The Prince, Doctrine of Fascism, any Giovani Gentile or any texts on the subject at all. Maybe audit some classes at the local community college, it would be benifical, assuming strongly holding on to political opinions is important to you.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 8:17 pm to Roll Tide Ravens
Hell no
Posted on 4/10/19 at 8:41 pm to Gj4Bama
Abortion should be an issue women decide on. I'm tired of it being a political football used to distract the masses from the fact this country is trillions in debt and that we're an empire, not a republic.
Page 3 of 8
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News