|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 17 2012 06:58 sam!zdat wrote:
And so now can we admit that the fundamental problem of 21st century is the porosity of nat'l borders to capital?
edit: See, you point out this dynamic as though a leftist has not thought of it and will therefore see the error of his ways, when in fact this problem of the flight of capital away from regulatory regimes is precisely the issue for the Left!
I point out this dynamic because I've never thought of it quite this profoundly before, lol. Story time!!
My family lives in the, I guess, "middle class" part of the greater city. Just to the north of us is a slightly lower class residential area. I was up there recently and it occurred to me that there were fewer richer people in this area. It then occurred to me that this area probably had higher taxes on said richer people. Thus, raising taxes on said rich doesn't necessarily net more revenue to the government, because there's less wealth within that area to tax now. I finally concluded that it would behoove these citizens to have the rich give them their money by way of working for it, catering to the rich if you will, rather than having the government tax/force it out of them and redistribute the money to the poor.
So it was more of me coming full circle with the dynamic and using it to predict what Boehner's caving-in would cause. Hope I didn't sound like, "I HAVE THE SOLUTION TO OUR NATION'S FISCAL PROBLEMS, GENTLEMEN! You can thank me this evening when I buy everyone a round with our new-found cash!!" Lol. Goodness. Very sorry if I did.... X-D
|
Ah! My apologies then! Keep thinking this way because you are on precisely the right track! Nice story 
|
On December 17 2012 06:57 cLAN.Anax wrote:Darn it, Danglars. You got to it before me.... >_< Republicans are stuck with a lose-lose situation on this move, if you ask me. If the economy turns up, the Democrats will praise themselves for "fixing" it. If the economy takes a dive again, they'll blame Republicans for taking too long to agree on this. Boehner's best bet would be to say to the Dems and the President, "Look. Nothing's going to pass unless we implement a tax increase, right? Well, here you go. Merry Christmas. We're giving you what you want. Now this is your idea we're getting behind here, not ours (the Republicans'). Just so we're clear on that, okay?" + Show Spoiler [Right-Biased Rant] +As an extremely fiscal conservative, I don't like the move one bit. Raising the taxes on the rich is only going to isolate them from our economy, and many that can will likely move elsewhere, to nations that don't tax as high. This will tell the rich (who help create jobs, by the way), "Hey. We don't like the fact that you have lots of money. Compared, of course, to these poor folks on welfare and food stamps. We're going to take even more of your money and give to them instead."
The only economy we'll be kickstarting, is some other country's....
I think I have to agree with this strategy. Honestly, I think Republicans need a new take on taxation. Something more reform minded in substance, not just rhetoric.
|
When you say things like "if the economy turns up" and "if the economy takes a dive" you begin to see how mass democratic politics don't process any real information, ya?
|
Well the media will have something new to yell about for a while.
Feinstein To Introduce Assault Weapon Ban
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said that she will introduce an assault weapons ban in the Senate on the first day of the next Congress in January, during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday.
"It's a first day bill I'm going to introduce in the Senate and the same bill will be introduced in the House, a bill to ban assault weapons," Feinstein said. "It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession -- not retroactively but perspectively -- and it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets. So there will be a bill. We've been working on it now for a year. We've tried to take my bill from '94 to 2004 and perfect it. We believe we have. we exempt over 900 specific weapons that will not be -- fall under the bill. But the purpose of this bill is to get just what Mayor Bloomberg said: Weapons of war off the streets of our cities."
"It can be done," Feinstein said, when asked about the prospects of the bill passing.
|
How does she define "assault weapon"?
|
On December 17 2012 09:01 BluePanther wrote:
How does she define "assault weapon"?
I'm not sure if she's given any explicit details, this was more of an EG style announcement of an announcement. I'm going to reserve judgement until we get more specifics, but considering its Feinstein, I'm not too confident she'll write up something good.
|
On December 17 2012 06:57 cLAN.Anax wrote:Darn it, Danglars. You got to it before me.... >_< Republicans are stuck with a lose-lose situation on this move, if you ask me. If the economy turns up, the Democrats will praise themselves for "fixing" it. If the economy takes a dive again, they'll blame Republicans for taking too long to agree on this. Boehner's best bet would be to say to the Dems and the President, "Look. Nothing's going to pass unless we implement a tax increase, right? Well, here you go. Merry Christmas. We're giving you what you want. Now this is your idea we're getting behind here, not ours (the Republicans'). Just so we're clear on that, okay?" + Show Spoiler [Right-Biased Rant] +As an extremely fiscal conservative, I don't like the move one bit. Raising the taxes on the rich is only going to isolate them from our economy, and many that can will likely move elsewhere, to nations that don't tax as high. This will tell the rich (who help create jobs, by the way), "Hey. We don't like the fact that you have lots of money. Compared, of course, to these poor folks on welfare and food stamps. We're going to take even more of your money and give to them instead."
The only economy we'll be kickstarting, is some other country's....
I hate this idea, to be honest. if we have all the power: Congress, than why should we bother giving them a damn thing? we'll be blamed either way. if you think us passing these nonsense tax hikes at the worst possible time will give us any points, then you're insane. conservative's will flip their shit and moderates will still blame us when the economy inevitably tanks. but we'll have done the one thing we can't keep doing which is shield and protect the middle class from their own horrible voting behaviors and shield and protect Obama from his own horrible economic decisions.
for the last four years, Republicans have given Obama everything he really wanted. we allow him to push radical legislation and reform through, and all the while have protected him from ever being seen as doing so by limiting that legislation's short-term effects on the general populace. so we end up taking the blame for the crap and we give Obama the chance to say he's some bipartisan that get's things done. it's ridiculous. it's like these people have no clue how to play the political game at all.
let us go over the fiscal cliff, and Republicans will take a hit, yeah. but Obama will take a hit too, and it will be the first time his temper tantrum didn't get him his way, so the hit to him will be way worse than the hit to us. We're going to be blamed anyway, we might as well bring him down with us and not protect him from his own crap.
I spent ten years hearing how the Bush tax cuts only benefit the rich, and now that they're about to expire, the story and rhetoric coming from the left is completely changed. screw that. they wanted the Bush tax cuts gone and now they can have it. playing Obama's game hasn't gotten us anywhere.
|
On December 17 2012 09:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 06:57 cLAN.Anax wrote:Darn it, Danglars. You got to it before me.... >_< Republicans are stuck with a lose-lose situation on this move, if you ask me. If the economy turns up, the Democrats will praise themselves for "fixing" it. If the economy takes a dive again, they'll blame Republicans for taking too long to agree on this. Boehner's best bet would be to say to the Dems and the President, "Look. Nothing's going to pass unless we implement a tax increase, right? Well, here you go. Merry Christmas. We're giving you what you want. Now this is your idea we're getting behind here, not ours (the Republicans'). Just so we're clear on that, okay?" + Show Spoiler [Right-Biased Rant] +As an extremely fiscal conservative, I don't like the move one bit. Raising the taxes on the rich is only going to isolate them from our economy, and many that can will likely move elsewhere, to nations that don't tax as high. This will tell the rich (who help create jobs, by the way), "Hey. We don't like the fact that you have lots of money. Compared, of course, to these poor folks on welfare and food stamps. We're going to take even more of your money and give to them instead."
The only economy we'll be kickstarting, is some other country's.... I hate this idea, to be honest. if we have all the power: Congress, than why should we bother giving them a damn thing? we'll be blamed either way. if you think us passing these nonsense tax hikes at the worst possible time will give us any points, then you're insane. conservative's will flip their shit and moderates will still blame us when the economy inevitably tanks. but we'll have done the one thing we can't keep doing which is shield and protect the middle class from their own horrible voting behaviors and shield and protect Obama from his own horrible economic decisions. for the last four years, Republicans have given Obama everything he really wanted. we allow him to push radical legislation and reform through, and all the while have protected him from ever being seen as doing so by limiting that legislation's short-term effects on the general populace. so we end up taking the blame for the crap and we give Obama the chance to say he's some bipartisan that get's things done. it's ridiculous. it's like these people have no clue how to play the political game at all. let us go over the fiscal cliff, and Republicans will take a hit, yeah. but Obama will take a hit too, and it will be the first time his temper tantrum didn't get him his way, so the hit to him will be way worse than the hit to us. We're going to be blamed anyway, we might as well bring him down with us and not protect him from his own crap. I spent ten years hearing how the Bush tax cuts only benefit the rich, and now that they're about to expire, the story and rhetoric coming from the left is completely changed. screw that. they wanted the Bush tax cuts gone and now they can have it. playing Obama's game hasn't gotten us anywhere.
Uhhh.... that's not true at all.
|
On December 17 2012 09:10 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 09:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 17 2012 06:57 cLAN.Anax wrote:Darn it, Danglars. You got to it before me.... >_< Republicans are stuck with a lose-lose situation on this move, if you ask me. If the economy turns up, the Democrats will praise themselves for "fixing" it. If the economy takes a dive again, they'll blame Republicans for taking too long to agree on this. Boehner's best bet would be to say to the Dems and the President, "Look. Nothing's going to pass unless we implement a tax increase, right? Well, here you go. Merry Christmas. We're giving you what you want. Now this is your idea we're getting behind here, not ours (the Republicans'). Just so we're clear on that, okay?" + Show Spoiler [Right-Biased Rant] +As an extremely fiscal conservative, I don't like the move one bit. Raising the taxes on the rich is only going to isolate them from our economy, and many that can will likely move elsewhere, to nations that don't tax as high. This will tell the rich (who help create jobs, by the way), "Hey. We don't like the fact that you have lots of money. Compared, of course, to these poor folks on welfare and food stamps. We're going to take even more of your money and give to them instead."
The only economy we'll be kickstarting, is some other country's.... I hate this idea, to be honest. if we have all the power: Congress, than why should we bother giving them a damn thing? we'll be blamed either way. if you think us passing these nonsense tax hikes at the worst possible time will give us any points, then you're insane. conservative's will flip their shit and moderates will still blame us when the economy inevitably tanks. but we'll have done the one thing we can't keep doing which is shield and protect the middle class from their own horrible voting behaviors and shield and protect Obama from his own horrible economic decisions. for the last four years, Republicans have given Obama everything he really wanted. we allow him to push radical legislation and reform through, and all the while have protected him from ever being seen as doing so by limiting that legislation's short-term effects on the general populace. so we end up taking the blame for the crap and we give Obama the chance to say he's some bipartisan that get's things done. it's ridiculous. it's like these people have no clue how to play the political game at all. let us go over the fiscal cliff, and Republicans will take a hit, yeah. but Obama will take a hit too, and it will be the first time his temper tantrum didn't get him his way, so the hit to him will be way worse than the hit to us. We're going to be blamed anyway, we might as well bring him down with us and not protect him from his own crap. I spent ten years hearing how the Bush tax cuts only benefit the rich, and now that they're about to expire, the story and rhetoric coming from the left is completely changed. screw that. they wanted the Bush tax cuts gone and now they can have it. playing Obama's game hasn't gotten us anywhere. Uhhh.... that's not true at all.
in a political sense it is.
|
On December 17 2012 09:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 09:10 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 09:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 17 2012 06:57 cLAN.Anax wrote:Darn it, Danglars. You got to it before me.... >_< Republicans are stuck with a lose-lose situation on this move, if you ask me. If the economy turns up, the Democrats will praise themselves for "fixing" it. If the economy takes a dive again, they'll blame Republicans for taking too long to agree on this. Boehner's best bet would be to say to the Dems and the President, "Look. Nothing's going to pass unless we implement a tax increase, right? Well, here you go. Merry Christmas. We're giving you what you want. Now this is your idea we're getting behind here, not ours (the Republicans'). Just so we're clear on that, okay?" + Show Spoiler [Right-Biased Rant] +As an extremely fiscal conservative, I don't like the move one bit. Raising the taxes on the rich is only going to isolate them from our economy, and many that can will likely move elsewhere, to nations that don't tax as high. This will tell the rich (who help create jobs, by the way), "Hey. We don't like the fact that you have lots of money. Compared, of course, to these poor folks on welfare and food stamps. We're going to take even more of your money and give to them instead."
The only economy we'll be kickstarting, is some other country's.... I hate this idea, to be honest. if we have all the power: Congress, than why should we bother giving them a damn thing? we'll be blamed either way. if you think us passing these nonsense tax hikes at the worst possible time will give us any points, then you're insane. conservative's will flip their shit and moderates will still blame us when the economy inevitably tanks. but we'll have done the one thing we can't keep doing which is shield and protect the middle class from their own horrible voting behaviors and shield and protect Obama from his own horrible economic decisions. for the last four years, Republicans have given Obama everything he really wanted. we allow him to push radical legislation and reform through, and all the while have protected him from ever being seen as doing so by limiting that legislation's short-term effects on the general populace. so we end up taking the blame for the crap and we give Obama the chance to say he's some bipartisan that get's things done. it's ridiculous. it's like these people have no clue how to play the political game at all. let us go over the fiscal cliff, and Republicans will take a hit, yeah. but Obama will take a hit too, and it will be the first time his temper tantrum didn't get him his way, so the hit to him will be way worse than the hit to us. We're going to be blamed anyway, we might as well bring him down with us and not protect him from his own crap. I spent ten years hearing how the Bush tax cuts only benefit the rich, and now that they're about to expire, the story and rhetoric coming from the left is completely changed. screw that. they wanted the Bush tax cuts gone and now they can have it. playing Obama's game hasn't gotten us anywhere. Uhhh.... that's not true at all. in a political sense it is.
There are some tremendous mental gymnastics going on here. A major component of Obama's success in the previous election was his ability to convince liberals that he would make up for his lack of political success. Even Obamacare itself got wing clipped.
|
On December 17 2012 07:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:14 kwizach wrote:On December 16 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:29 kwizach wrote:On December 16 2012 04:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:11 kwizach wrote:On December 16 2012 04:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:07 kwizach wrote:On December 16 2012 03:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 15 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
He said that keeping God out of American schools contributed to having shootings like this one. Like Stealthblue said, he really is an asshole. that's not being an asshole. It is. The two are completely unrelated, and the only thing he's doing is pushing his agenda. in your opinion they are unrelated. in many other people's opinion, they are not unrelated at all. I guess you could say that you disagree with his opinion and that because you disagree, he's an asshole for having that opinion, but I think that's a little ridiculous. Ah, the good old "it's only your opinion". How are the two supposed to be related exactly? clearly he thinks that a greater emphasis on God in schools would lead to a more moral lifestyle and a more morally aware society. this is a pretty common line of thinking that most, if not all, Christians agree with. it's arguable if it will or not, but that right there means his opinion isn't disgusting or inherently wrong, there are legitimate and valid arguments to be made that a greater focus on religion can lead to a more cohesive and moral society, just as there are legitimate and valid arguments to make against that position. since there can be a legitimate discussion about the issue, I think that means he's not an asshole for bringing it up, and he's not just pushing an agenda. he honestly perceives that as a way to help prevent tragedies like this from occurring. I could just as easily say that anyone who brought up gun-control is being an asshole and should shut up and is just pushing their agenda, but I don't do that because my disagreement with a position doesn't make the position an immoral one to take. Ok, so you don't have anything to support a link between the two except that it's "the opinion" of most Christians. Since he did not even present it as his opinion but as fact, we can legitimately say that for doing so on the back of a national tragedy he's an asshole promoting his agenda. I didn't say I don't have anything to support a link between the two. (though, I'm not very interested in having this argument right now. maybe later) of course he presented it as a fact, in his opinion it is a fact that it would have helped. and no, a national tragedy does not mean that everyone who might have a different opinion than you has to shut up about it. Huckabee knows very well that there is no serious study or any evidence that indicates Christians are less violent than Atheists. And that's not even what he's saying, since his point was not only that the Christian faith made people less violent but that the Christian faith should appear in school for all students. There is, again, ZERO evidence that this would make people less violent, and ZERO evidence or reason why it would prevent tragedies like this one. It is, however, the agenda he defends regardless of the shootings (bringing Christianity back into the public sphere). That's why presenting as factual something that isn't, and using a national tragedy in order to push forward his agenda, makes him an asshole. he didn't say that Christians are less violent. and who cares if he presented his feelings as facts, he believes they are facts. why aren't you people in the gun control thread with this attitude? why aren't you calling Bob Costas (and every other media personality from yesterday) an asshole? there is nothing wrong with trying to prevent things like this from occurring, and even if kwizach happens to disagree with them, that doesn't somehow make it wrong to talk about.
If you're going to ignore what I write/answer it with "who cares", then I don't really get the point of replying to me. We get it, you don't think he's an asshole. Good for you.
On December 17 2012 09:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 09:10 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 09:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 17 2012 06:57 cLAN.Anax wrote:Darn it, Danglars. You got to it before me.... >_< Republicans are stuck with a lose-lose situation on this move, if you ask me. If the economy turns up, the Democrats will praise themselves for "fixing" it. If the economy takes a dive again, they'll blame Republicans for taking too long to agree on this. Boehner's best bet would be to say to the Dems and the President, "Look. Nothing's going to pass unless we implement a tax increase, right? Well, here you go. Merry Christmas. We're giving you what you want. Now this is your idea we're getting behind here, not ours (the Republicans'). Just so we're clear on that, okay?" + Show Spoiler [Right-Biased Rant] +As an extremely fiscal conservative, I don't like the move one bit. Raising the taxes on the rich is only going to isolate them from our economy, and many that can will likely move elsewhere, to nations that don't tax as high. This will tell the rich (who help create jobs, by the way), "Hey. We don't like the fact that you have lots of money. Compared, of course, to these poor folks on welfare and food stamps. We're going to take even more of your money and give to them instead."
The only economy we'll be kickstarting, is some other country's.... I hate this idea, to be honest. if we have all the power: Congress, than why should we bother giving them a damn thing? we'll be blamed either way. if you think us passing these nonsense tax hikes at the worst possible time will give us any points, then you're insane. conservative's will flip their shit and moderates will still blame us when the economy inevitably tanks. but we'll have done the one thing we can't keep doing which is shield and protect the middle class from their own horrible voting behaviors and shield and protect Obama from his own horrible economic decisions. for the last four years, Republicans have given Obama everything he really wanted. we allow him to push radical legislation and reform through, and all the while have protected him from ever being seen as doing so by limiting that legislation's short-term effects on the general populace. so we end up taking the blame for the crap and we give Obama the chance to say he's some bipartisan that get's things done. it's ridiculous. it's like these people have no clue how to play the political game at all. let us go over the fiscal cliff, and Republicans will take a hit, yeah. but Obama will take a hit too, and it will be the first time his temper tantrum didn't get him his way, so the hit to him will be way worse than the hit to us. We're going to be blamed anyway, we might as well bring him down with us and not protect him from his own crap. I spent ten years hearing how the Bush tax cuts only benefit the rich, and now that they're about to expire, the story and rhetoric coming from the left is completely changed. screw that. they wanted the Bush tax cuts gone and now they can have it. playing Obama's game hasn't gotten us anywhere. Uhhh.... that's not true at all. in a political sense it is.
No, it's not true in any sense. Republicans have tried to block Obama's policies at every corner.
|
On December 17 2012 09:16 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 09:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 17 2012 09:10 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 09:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 17 2012 06:57 cLAN.Anax wrote:Darn it, Danglars. You got to it before me.... >_< Republicans are stuck with a lose-lose situation on this move, if you ask me. If the economy turns up, the Democrats will praise themselves for "fixing" it. If the economy takes a dive again, they'll blame Republicans for taking too long to agree on this. Boehner's best bet would be to say to the Dems and the President, "Look. Nothing's going to pass unless we implement a tax increase, right? Well, here you go. Merry Christmas. We're giving you what you want. Now this is your idea we're getting behind here, not ours (the Republicans'). Just so we're clear on that, okay?" + Show Spoiler [Right-Biased Rant] +As an extremely fiscal conservative, I don't like the move one bit. Raising the taxes on the rich is only going to isolate them from our economy, and many that can will likely move elsewhere, to nations that don't tax as high. This will tell the rich (who help create jobs, by the way), "Hey. We don't like the fact that you have lots of money. Compared, of course, to these poor folks on welfare and food stamps. We're going to take even more of your money and give to them instead."
The only economy we'll be kickstarting, is some other country's.... I hate this idea, to be honest. if we have all the power: Congress, than why should we bother giving them a damn thing? we'll be blamed either way. if you think us passing these nonsense tax hikes at the worst possible time will give us any points, then you're insane. conservative's will flip their shit and moderates will still blame us when the economy inevitably tanks. but we'll have done the one thing we can't keep doing which is shield and protect the middle class from their own horrible voting behaviors and shield and protect Obama from his own horrible economic decisions. for the last four years, Republicans have given Obama everything he really wanted. we allow him to push radical legislation and reform through, and all the while have protected him from ever being seen as doing so by limiting that legislation's short-term effects on the general populace. so we end up taking the blame for the crap and we give Obama the chance to say he's some bipartisan that get's things done. it's ridiculous. it's like these people have no clue how to play the political game at all. let us go over the fiscal cliff, and Republicans will take a hit, yeah. but Obama will take a hit too, and it will be the first time his temper tantrum didn't get him his way, so the hit to him will be way worse than the hit to us. We're going to be blamed anyway, we might as well bring him down with us and not protect him from his own crap. I spent ten years hearing how the Bush tax cuts only benefit the rich, and now that they're about to expire, the story and rhetoric coming from the left is completely changed. screw that. they wanted the Bush tax cuts gone and now they can have it. playing Obama's game hasn't gotten us anywhere. Uhhh.... that's not true at all. in a political sense it is. There are some tremendous mental gymnastics going on here. A major component of Obama's success in the previous election was his ability to convince liberals that he would make up for his lack of political success. Even Obamacare itself got wing clipped.
or we could turn it around and say that a major component of his success was the Republicans in Congress never forcing the issue with him.
1) they have the power of appropriation, they could have cut off his spending years ago.
2) they made a ridiculous compromise with him to allow him to kick the debt ceiling debacle down the road, and allowed the Dems to create a psuedo-fiscal cliff to use as the proverbial gun to the country's head.
3) they fought hard enough to neuter some of his stuff, but that just allows him to pass a neutered, ineffective, wasteful bill that we'll somehow get the blame for (Obamacare).
Republicans could have played this like Gingrich did with Clinton, but then again, that would take them admitting that their coup in the 90s was pathetic and boot-licking. something they will never do, because even though they are our bastards, they're still bastards.
|
On December 17 2012 09:18 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:14 kwizach wrote:On December 16 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:29 kwizach wrote:On December 16 2012 04:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:11 kwizach wrote:On December 16 2012 04:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:07 kwizach wrote:On December 16 2012 03:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
that's not being an asshole. It is. The two are completely unrelated, and the only thing he's doing is pushing his agenda. in your opinion they are unrelated. in many other people's opinion, they are not unrelated at all. I guess you could say that you disagree with his opinion and that because you disagree, he's an asshole for having that opinion, but I think that's a little ridiculous. Ah, the good old "it's only your opinion". How are the two supposed to be related exactly? clearly he thinks that a greater emphasis on God in schools would lead to a more moral lifestyle and a more morally aware society. this is a pretty common line of thinking that most, if not all, Christians agree with. it's arguable if it will or not, but that right there means his opinion isn't disgusting or inherently wrong, there are legitimate and valid arguments to be made that a greater focus on religion can lead to a more cohesive and moral society, just as there are legitimate and valid arguments to make against that position. since there can be a legitimate discussion about the issue, I think that means he's not an asshole for bringing it up, and he's not just pushing an agenda. he honestly perceives that as a way to help prevent tragedies like this from occurring. I could just as easily say that anyone who brought up gun-control is being an asshole and should shut up and is just pushing their agenda, but I don't do that because my disagreement with a position doesn't make the position an immoral one to take. Ok, so you don't have anything to support a link between the two except that it's "the opinion" of most Christians. Since he did not even present it as his opinion but as fact, we can legitimately say that for doing so on the back of a national tragedy he's an asshole promoting his agenda. I didn't say I don't have anything to support a link between the two. (though, I'm not very interested in having this argument right now. maybe later) of course he presented it as a fact, in his opinion it is a fact that it would have helped. and no, a national tragedy does not mean that everyone who might have a different opinion than you has to shut up about it. Huckabee knows very well that there is no serious study or any evidence that indicates Christians are less violent than Atheists. And that's not even what he's saying, since his point was not only that the Christian faith made people less violent but that the Christian faith should appear in school for all students. There is, again, ZERO evidence that this would make people less violent, and ZERO evidence or reason why it would prevent tragedies like this one. It is, however, the agenda he defends regardless of the shootings (bringing Christianity back into the public sphere). That's why presenting as factual something that isn't, and using a national tragedy in order to push forward his agenda, makes him an asshole. he didn't say that Christians are less violent. and who cares if he presented his feelings as facts, he believes they are facts. why aren't you people in the gun control thread with this attitude? why aren't you calling Bob Costas (and every other media personality from yesterday) an asshole? there is nothing wrong with trying to prevent things like this from occurring, and even if kwizach happens to disagree with them, that doesn't somehow make it wrong to talk about. If you're going to ignore what I write/answer it with "who cares", then I don't really get the point of replying to me. We get it, you don't think he's an asshole. Good for you.
I didn't ignore what you said, I addressed it and then responded with a point of my own: why don't you apply that standard to everyone, with all opinions?
edit: as for there being no evidence of Christianity in schools leading to less violence in schools... well... is there any evidence against it? how many random school shootings like this happened when the Bible was taught in schools and the religion of the country was more homogenous and prevalent in the public sphere?
|
On December 17 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 09:18 kwizach wrote:On December 17 2012 07:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:14 kwizach wrote:On December 16 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:29 kwizach wrote:On December 16 2012 04:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:11 kwizach wrote:On December 16 2012 04:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:07 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
It is. The two are completely unrelated, and the only thing he's doing is pushing his agenda. in your opinion they are unrelated. in many other people's opinion, they are not unrelated at all. I guess you could say that you disagree with his opinion and that because you disagree, he's an asshole for having that opinion, but I think that's a little ridiculous. Ah, the good old "it's only your opinion". How are the two supposed to be related exactly? clearly he thinks that a greater emphasis on God in schools would lead to a more moral lifestyle and a more morally aware society. this is a pretty common line of thinking that most, if not all, Christians agree with. it's arguable if it will or not, but that right there means his opinion isn't disgusting or inherently wrong, there are legitimate and valid arguments to be made that a greater focus on religion can lead to a more cohesive and moral society, just as there are legitimate and valid arguments to make against that position. since there can be a legitimate discussion about the issue, I think that means he's not an asshole for bringing it up, and he's not just pushing an agenda. he honestly perceives that as a way to help prevent tragedies like this from occurring. I could just as easily say that anyone who brought up gun-control is being an asshole and should shut up and is just pushing their agenda, but I don't do that because my disagreement with a position doesn't make the position an immoral one to take. Ok, so you don't have anything to support a link between the two except that it's "the opinion" of most Christians. Since he did not even present it as his opinion but as fact, we can legitimately say that for doing so on the back of a national tragedy he's an asshole promoting his agenda. I didn't say I don't have anything to support a link between the two. (though, I'm not very interested in having this argument right now. maybe later) of course he presented it as a fact, in his opinion it is a fact that it would have helped. and no, a national tragedy does not mean that everyone who might have a different opinion than you has to shut up about it. Huckabee knows very well that there is no serious study or any evidence that indicates Christians are less violent than Atheists. And that's not even what he's saying, since his point was not only that the Christian faith made people less violent but that the Christian faith should appear in school for all students. There is, again, ZERO evidence that this would make people less violent, and ZERO evidence or reason why it would prevent tragedies like this one. It is, however, the agenda he defends regardless of the shootings (bringing Christianity back into the public sphere). That's why presenting as factual something that isn't, and using a national tragedy in order to push forward his agenda, makes him an asshole. he didn't say that Christians are less violent. and who cares if he presented his feelings as facts, he believes they are facts. why aren't you people in the gun control thread with this attitude? why aren't you calling Bob Costas (and every other media personality from yesterday) an asshole? there is nothing wrong with trying to prevent things like this from occurring, and even if kwizach happens to disagree with them, that doesn't somehow make it wrong to talk about. If you're going to ignore what I write/answer it with "who cares", then I don't really get the point of replying to me. We get it, you don't think he's an asshole. Good for you. I didn't ignore what you said, I addressed it and then responded with a point of my own: why don't you apply that standard to everyone, with all opinions?
The answer to your question is in the post you "replied" to. "That's why presenting as factual something that isn't, and using a national tragedy in order to push forward his agenda [unrelated to the tragedy], makes him an asshole."
On December 17 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:
edit: as for there being no evidence of Christianity in schools leading to less violence in schools... well... is there any evidence against it? how many random school shootings like this happened when the Bible was taught in schools and the religion of the country was more homogenous and prevalent in the public sphere?
Oh wow, what a great point. Is there any evidence against teaching about the Spaghetti monster reducing violence? Hey, since we're bringing up stuff with no evidence to support any link, how many school shootings like this happened when airplanes had not been invented yet? Do you think airplanes might be the problem?
|
This is where you try look past the obvious fallacy of his position and try to think how he might be right without realizing what he's right about
|
On December 17 2012 09:40 sam!zdat wrote:
This is where you try look past the obvious fallacy of his position and try to think how he might be right without realizing what he's right about
And I've already given you an answer on the matter.
|
Yes, it's the already-given answers of which we should be most suspicious 
|
On December 17 2012 09:47 sam!zdat wrote:Yes, it's the already-given answers of which we should be most suspicious
That sentence doesn't make any sense in the context of our exchange. Your reply to my points was simply that you did not share my views (and that you were more cynical). You did not explain why or which of my points you disagreed with.
|
I know. I'm teasing Gonna keep buzzing in your ear on this one, however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
