|
|
On June 17 2012 14:40 smarty pants wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 14:34 Feartheguru wrote:
Is someone really arguing environmental regulations are more of an intrusion into people's lives than banning gay marriage?
Why are you people trying to reason with him. Well, more people could be affected by the former than the latter, so I suppose that would be more of an intrusion into other people's lives.
Generally that is the argument used. Banning gay marriage protects the rights of those that don't like it, environmental regulations intrude upon everyone's right to do whatever they want to the environment, but do not DIRECTLY intrude on the rights of individuals.
(I don't agree, this is how it is generally argued)
|
On June 17 2012 15:21 Froadac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 14:40 smarty pants wrote:On June 17 2012 14:34 Feartheguru wrote:
Is someone really arguing environmental regulations are more of an intrusion into people's lives than banning gay marriage?
Why are you people trying to reason with him. Well, more people could be affected by the former than the latter, so I suppose that would be more of an intrusion into other people's lives. Generally that is the argument used. Banning gay marriage protects the rights of those that don't like it, environmental regulations intrude upon everyone's right to do whatever they want to the environment, but do not DIRECTLY intrude on the rights of individuals. (I don't agree, this is how it is generally argued)
I get the argument. It's weak, but I get it.
Forget gay marriage, and consider abortion for a moment. It's true that only a small portion of people will get abortions, but banning it requires a massive legal and regulatory regime. This would have to include access to patient files, medical records, and potentially physical examinations by government investegators. This doesn't just affect people who sought or received abortions. It's affects everyone. If you're for small government (especially in a libertarian sense), few things could be more intrusive. It's an affront to civil liberties.
|
On June 17 2012 11:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 10:08 Defacer wrote:On June 17 2012 09:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:28 Deathmanbob wrote:On June 17 2012 09:23 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:11 farvacola wrote:On June 17 2012 08:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 06:48 DoubleReed wrote:On June 17 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how little liberals understand of conservatives. It is even more amazing that I, as a conservative, can come in here and explain the basis for the conservative point of view, and then be told that I am wrong by a chorus of liberal fools.
Bravo, guys. You definitely know more about my own belief system than I do. Dude, you were the one talking about what America believes. You really don't have any room to talk. You're always decrying about 'dem darn-blasted liberals' and then when somebody points out stupid things you outrightly say you just double-down with the hating on 'them liberal folk.' I'm really not into the whole 'us vs them' mentality myself. It just seems like the people in this thread who think you're an idiot immediately get labeled as a liberal and then promptly discarded. Not that I want you to stop. It is always hilarious to see where this goes. Another sterling example of someone not bothering to read what I said. I was not talking about what "America" believes (meaning all Americans as you are implying), I explicitly said "many Americans" and added in parentheses "arguably most" Americans. When 40+% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, I think using the terminology that I used is perfectly fair and appropriate. And for the record, the vast majority of people who argue that things that I say are "stupid" unsurprisingly happen to be liberal. I don't think that there's any dispute that the offenders in this particular instance (including you) are liberal. If people want to flame me for things that I say, that's their business. But if they say something ridiculous or stupid in doing so (like you and the other people in the posts above on this page), I am going to point it out. And sorry, but liberals telling me that I don't know what conservatives believe is just too stupid to ignore. Is a belief in the governments responsibility to legislate moral platforms a conservative idea? (I'm talking abortion, gay marriage, issues of that sort). Naturally, the answer is no. And yet, I can guarantee you that within that mysterious 40%+ number you pulled out of a hat many many respondents believe that the government ought to ban gay marriage, overturn Roe v. Wade, and legislate a ban of the teaching of evolution in schools (tsk tsk Tennessee). What I'm getting at here is that your blanket declaration of right-leaning citizens as conservative is misleading and no doubt untrue, in that a remarkable number of people have no idea what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" truly mean. I'd argue that it is not. In fact, there is a significant movement within the republican party that argues that it is more ideologically "conservative" for the government not to be involved in any of those social debates rather than arguing for the imposition of a particular solution (like banning gay marriage). Regardless, I do not think that it is fair to compare the relatively limited governmental intrusions that social conservatives push to the larger, blanket economic intrusions that socialists push. The scope of the intrusions aren't even comparable. i dont mean to jump into your argument with anyone here but are you really telling me that a ban on abortion, a ban on gay marriage and a ban on teaching evolution could ever be described as "relatively limited governmental intrusions"? i will let you post your argument, what are the liberal side of America doing that is such a huge intrusion that it would render these three topics relatively limited? Yep. Abortion and marriage are discrete activities, so regulating them has a discrete and relatively limited effect upon society. Compare that to the broad liberal social engineering projects such as affirmative action, environmental regulation, health regulation, broad-based welfare policies, etc (I could go on for a while), and there really is no comparison between the scope of intrusion that liberals desire versus what conservatives desire. Hell, we are now at a point where liberals openly talk about and legislate what we are allowed to eat (see New York). Hell, we are now at the point where Republicans talk openly about homosexuality being a choice, amending the constitution to ban gay marriage, claiming America is Christian nation, talk about re-establishing Christian values in the goverment and undo the separation of church and state, denying evolution, teaching intelligent design in schools, denying climate change science, claiming human life starts before conception, claiming contraception is a sin, letting major American manufacturing like the Auto industry go bankrupt, ending federal funding for education and law enforcement which existed since the 1980's, deregulating healthcare and turning it over all health care over to the free market, raising taxes on the extremely poor and retired to 15% under Ryan plan ... Saying that Republicans aren't interested or engaging in their own form of social engineering is the pot calling the kettle a fucking hypocrite. Good lord. Do you even understand the fundamental differences between beliefs and policies, much less the difference between holding a belief and using the government to enforce that belief upon others? Let's just look at "claiming contraception is a sin" as an example. I am not aware of any vast, right wing movement to prevent any and all access to contraception. Limiting or eliminating government-funded access to contraception? Sure. But that's not the same thing, and that's entirely consistent within a conservative, "the government should the stay the hell out of our lives" philosophy.
Don't pretend that there isn't an entire faction of 'Republican' supporters that are trying to impose their beliefs onto others, which Republican leaders are pandering to.
Case in point: Ric Grenell being unceremoniously dumped from the Romney campaign, despite being a life-long, diehard Republican and neocon hawk. Why? Because a Christian Radio host protested his involvement because he was gay.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/grenell-a-republican-true-believer.html
If you don't understand that beliefs influence and shape policy, than YOU have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word 'politics' means.
I'm disappointed in you right now, man. I thought you were more intellectually honest to that.
Edit: think I had a quadruple negative in one of my sentences, lol.
|
On June 17 2012 16:50 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 11:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 10:08 Defacer wrote:On June 17 2012 09:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:28 Deathmanbob wrote:On June 17 2012 09:23 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:11 farvacola wrote:On June 17 2012 08:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 06:48 DoubleReed wrote:On June 17 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how little liberals understand of conservatives. It is even more amazing that I, as a conservative, can come in here and explain the basis for the conservative point of view, and then be told that I am wrong by a chorus of liberal fools.
Bravo, guys. You definitely know more about my own belief system than I do. Dude, you were the one talking about what America believes. You really don't have any room to talk. You're always decrying about 'dem darn-blasted liberals' and then when somebody points out stupid things you outrightly say you just double-down with the hating on 'them liberal folk.' I'm really not into the whole 'us vs them' mentality myself. It just seems like the people in this thread who think you're an idiot immediately get labeled as a liberal and then promptly discarded. Not that I want you to stop. It is always hilarious to see where this goes. Another sterling example of someone not bothering to read what I said. I was not talking about what "America" believes (meaning all Americans as you are implying), I explicitly said "many Americans" and added in parentheses "arguably most" Americans. When 40+% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, I think using the terminology that I used is perfectly fair and appropriate. And for the record, the vast majority of people who argue that things that I say are "stupid" unsurprisingly happen to be liberal. I don't think that there's any dispute that the offenders in this particular instance (including you) are liberal. If people want to flame me for things that I say, that's their business. But if they say something ridiculous or stupid in doing so (like you and the other people in the posts above on this page), I am going to point it out. And sorry, but liberals telling me that I don't know what conservatives believe is just too stupid to ignore. Is a belief in the governments responsibility to legislate moral platforms a conservative idea? (I'm talking abortion, gay marriage, issues of that sort). Naturally, the answer is no. And yet, I can guarantee you that within that mysterious 40%+ number you pulled out of a hat many many respondents believe that the government ought to ban gay marriage, overturn Roe v. Wade, and legislate a ban of the teaching of evolution in schools (tsk tsk Tennessee). What I'm getting at here is that your blanket declaration of right-leaning citizens as conservative is misleading and no doubt untrue, in that a remarkable number of people have no idea what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" truly mean. I'd argue that it is not. In fact, there is a significant movement within the republican party that argues that it is more ideologically "conservative" for the government not to be involved in any of those social debates rather than arguing for the imposition of a particular solution (like banning gay marriage). Regardless, I do not think that it is fair to compare the relatively limited governmental intrusions that social conservatives push to the larger, blanket economic intrusions that socialists push. The scope of the intrusions aren't even comparable. i dont mean to jump into your argument with anyone here but are you really telling me that a ban on abortion, a ban on gay marriage and a ban on teaching evolution could ever be described as "relatively limited governmental intrusions"? i will let you post your argument, what are the liberal side of America doing that is such a huge intrusion that it would render these three topics relatively limited? Yep. Abortion and marriage are discrete activities, so regulating them has a discrete and relatively limited effect upon society. Compare that to the broad liberal social engineering projects such as affirmative action, environmental regulation, health regulation, broad-based welfare policies, etc (I could go on for a while), and there really is no comparison between the scope of intrusion that liberals desire versus what conservatives desire. Hell, we are now at a point where liberals openly talk about and legislate what we are allowed to eat (see New York). Hell, we are now at the point where Republicans talk openly about homosexuality being a choice, amending the constitution to ban gay marriage, claiming America is Christian nation, talk about re-establishing Christian values in the goverment and undo the separation of church and state, denying evolution, teaching intelligent design in schools, denying climate change science, claiming human life starts before conception, claiming contraception is a sin, letting major American manufacturing like the Auto industry go bankrupt, ending federal funding for education and law enforcement which existed since the 1980's, deregulating healthcare and turning it over all health care over to the free market, raising taxes on the extremely poor and retired to 15% under Ryan plan ... Saying that Republicans aren't interested or engaging in their own form of social engineering is the pot calling the kettle a fucking hypocrite. Good lord. Do you even understand the fundamental differences between beliefs and policies, much less the difference between holding a belief and using the government to enforce that belief upon others? Let's just look at "claiming contraception is a sin" as an example. I am not aware of any vast, right wing movement to prevent any and all access to contraception. Limiting or eliminating government-funded access to contraception? Sure. But that's not the same thing, and that's entirely consistent within a conservative, "the government should the stay the hell out of our lives" philosophy. Don't pretend that there isn't an entire faction of 'Republican' supporters that aren't trying to impose their beliefs onto others, that Republican leaders aren't pandering to. Case in point: Ric Grenell being unceremoniously dumped from the Romney campaign, despite being a life-long, diehard Republican and neocon hawk. Why? Because a Christian Radio host protested his involvement because he was gay. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/grenell-a-republican-true-believer.htmlIf you don't understand that beliefs influence and shape policy, than YOU have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word 'politics' means. I'm disappointed in you right now, man. I thought you were more intellectually honest to that.
Intellectually honest? He completely ignores data about the state of the private sector because he thinks it's "ridiculous" and says that Obama doesn't compromise enough since he's not implementing Republican policy.
|
You know, Republican policies really aren't all bad. There are some good policies, especially in finance, that actually would be good for the economy (not all of them, mind you) that Europe could certainly learn from. US=EU in GDP while the EU has a much larger population, and that is not without good reason. In part, high taxes justify it, but many European countries have irrational anti-business policies.
It's only the modern state of the party that really is so messed up. I'd blame Bush, the two Bush campaigns, and the fact that they don't really want to forget about the Cold War. Bush was extremely polarizing and divisive and the Cold War makes them oppose anything deemed to be "socialism."
|
On June 17 2012 15:21 Froadac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 14:40 smarty pants wrote:On June 17 2012 14:34 Feartheguru wrote:
Is someone really arguing environmental regulations are more of an intrusion into people's lives than banning gay marriage?
Why are you people trying to reason with him. Well, more people could be affected by the former than the latter, so I suppose that would be more of an intrusion into other people's lives. Generally that is the argument used. Banning gay marriage protects the rights of those that don't like it, environmental regulations intrude upon everyone's right to do whatever they want to the environment, but do not DIRECTLY intrude on the rights of individuals. (I don't agree, this is how it is generally argued)
Its probably sketchy for other reasons too. I mean without environmental regulations, sure you'd have freedom from government intrusion, but then you have to deal with corporations and other people in general that spread their pollution into your state or private property...what about those freedoms? Your freedom to not be negatively affected by other people, that could constrict you in ways that are 10x more severe than what a petty law by the government does? That is, it could be argued that the net benefit of laws is *more* freedom.
These arguments are too simplistic, the government isn't the only actor here. It could easily be argued that the democrats care more about freedom than republicans do; i.e. with how welfare programs ensure that poor people (a large proportion of society) are given the capability to live a full and happy life, and perhaps contribute back to the economy as a result. Sure you could try to do that through voluntary donations; but I think the truth is government's constant funding is necessary to run these larger projects (and also the free rider problem, etc.) In the end these less government intervention arguments would probably bleed into the same ones used by supporters of anarcho-capitalism...and run into the same criticisms of idealism that are associated with that.
|
On June 18 2012 00:24 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 15:21 Froadac wrote:On June 17 2012 14:40 smarty pants wrote:On June 17 2012 14:34 Feartheguru wrote:
Is someone really arguing environmental regulations are more of an intrusion into people's lives than banning gay marriage?
Why are you people trying to reason with him. Well, more people could be affected by the former than the latter, so I suppose that would be more of an intrusion into other people's lives. Generally that is the argument used. Banning gay marriage protects the rights of those that don't like it, environmental regulations intrude upon everyone's right to do whatever they want to the environment, but do not DIRECTLY intrude on the rights of individuals. (I don't agree, this is how it is generally argued) Its probably sketchy for other reasons too. I mean without environmental regulations, sure you'd have freedom from government intrusion, but then you have to deal with corporations and other people in general that spread their pollution into your state or private property...what about those freedoms? Your freedom to not be negatively affected by other people, that could constrict you in ways that are 10x more severe than what a petty law by the government does? That is, it could be argued that the net benefit of laws is *more* freedom. These arguments are too simplistic, the government isn't the only actor here. It could easily be argued that the democrats care more about freedom than republicans do; i.e. with how welfare programs ensure that poor people (a large proportion of society) are given the capability to live a full and happy life, and perhaps contribute back to the economy as a result. Sure you could try to do that through voluntary donations; but I think the truth is government's constant funding is necessary to run these larger projects (and also the free rider problem, etc.) In the end these less government intervention arguments would probably bleed into the same ones used by supporters of anarcho-capitalism...and run into the same criticisms of idealism that are associated with that.
Of course... of course. A lot of it has to do with viewpoint.
|
Well, Obama suddenly directly alleviated the burden of the undocumented youths in the country. A bit close to election time, but a historic, far-reaching good for many people nonetheless. Any thoughts on this? Is this move going to help Obama in the election? How will Romney respond?
|
Obama has always been pretty vocally pro-immigration for good immigrants, and Romney against immigration. Romney has responded with his disapproval.
Nothing of real significance, except it might hurt Romney with Hispanic voters.
|
On June 17 2012 15:21 Froadac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 14:40 smarty pants wrote:On June 17 2012 14:34 Feartheguru wrote:
Is someone really arguing environmental regulations are more of an intrusion into people's lives than banning gay marriage?
Why are you people trying to reason with him. Well, more people could be affected by the former than the latter, so I suppose that would be more of an intrusion into other people's lives. Generally that is the argument used. Banning gay marriage protects the rights of those that don't like it, environmental regulations intrude upon everyone's right to do whatever they want to the environment, but do not DIRECTLY intrude on the rights of individuals. (I don't agree, this is how it is generally argued)
People who argue this have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "rights" are (or, more likely, are conveniently ignoring rationality in favor of their beliefs).
There is no right to not be offended (whether by gay marriage or anything else), and damaging the environment infringes upon the rights of others who share that environment.
Simply put, you have a right to do anything you want as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others (e.g. it does not impose a real harm or negative externality on others). Since gay marriage does not impose a real harm or negative externality on others, the government cannot legitimately ban it; inversely, since damage to the environment does impose negative externalities, the government must regulate it.
|
On June 18 2012 09:42 sunprince wrote:
since damage to the environment does impose negative externalities, the government must regulate it.
But what about BUSYNESS??
|
I wish I could vote Republican. I'm not willing to align myself with people who are actively promoting bigotry and discrimination simply so I can have more material wealth. In a few years when all the old people are dead, I'll start voting Republican again.
|
On June 18 2012 09:50 Risen wrote:
I wish I could vote Republican. I'm not willing to align myself with people who are actively promoting bigotry and discrimination simply so I can have more material wealth. In a few years when all the old people are dead, I'll start voting Republican again.
If I were a Republican, I would have left the current party because the state of the party is disgusting.
|
On June 18 2012 09:45 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:42 sunprince wrote:
since damage to the environment does impose negative externalities, the government must regulate it. But what about BUSYNESS??
Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong proponent of free market capitalism, and I oppose unnecessary regulation. However, a failure to regulate negative externalities does not make for a free market; it actually results in a dysfunctional market that encourages agents to pass some of their costs on to others.
To put it another way, governments (which represent the people of a nation) allow businesses to harvest or otherwise utilize their nation-state's natural resources (i.e. oil fields, lumber forests, fish/game, etc) for a cut of the profits. Why shouldn't the same apply when businesses use the air or water (via pollution) that belongs to a nation-state?
|
Yes, it seems so obvious, doesn't it 
I'm not sure capitalism as we know it can handle this problem, but that's not on the ballot this election
|
On June 18 2012 09:39 Lightwip wrote:
Obama has always been pretty vocally pro-immigration for good immigrants, and Romney against immigration. Romney has responded with his disapproval.
Nothing of real significance, except it might hurt Romney with Hispanic voters.
Why would you say Romney is against immigration? In fact, Romney has been rather vocal about his support for legal immigration.
|
On June 18 2012 10:38 Papulatus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:39 Lightwip wrote:
Obama has always been pretty vocally pro-immigration for good immigrants, and Romney against immigration. Romney has responded with his disapproval.
Nothing of real significance, except it might hurt Romney with Hispanic voters. Why would you say Romney is against immigration? In fact, Romney has been rather vocal about his support for legal immigration.
No one cares about a candidates stance towards legal immigration, thats practically a non-issue in comparison to a president's platform on dealing with the ILLEGAL side of the issue. Romney's stance amounts to little more than "just say no to illegal immigration".
|
On June 18 2012 10:11 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:45 sam!zdat wrote:On June 18 2012 09:42 sunprince wrote:
since damage to the environment does impose negative externalities, the government must regulate it. But what about BUSYNESS?? Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong proponent of free market capitalism, and I oppose unnecessary regulation. However, a failure to regulate negative externalities does not make for a free market; it actually results in a dysfunctional market that encourages agents to pass some of their costs on to others. To put it another way, governments (which represent the people of a nation) allow businesses to harvest or otherwise utilize their nation-state's natural resources (i.e. oil fields, lumber forests, fish/game, etc) for a cut of the profits. Why shouldn't the same apply when businesses use the air or water (via pollution) that belongs to a nation-state?
What is this sir? Is this a reasonable, well thought out stance on capitalism and regulation?
This has no place on the Internet. TL should ban you for posts like this.
|
Well, part of the problem is that there is a global commons which does not belong to any particular nation-state, and this commons is not being protected (we pretend it does not exist)
edit: and because nation-states compete for investment from transnational corporations, they compete to protect the commons the least, thus the tragedy-of-
|
On June 18 2012 11:17 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 10:11 sunprince wrote:On June 18 2012 09:45 sam!zdat wrote:On June 18 2012 09:42 sunprince wrote:
since damage to the environment does impose negative externalities, the government must regulate it. But what about BUSYNESS?? Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong proponent of free market capitalism, and I oppose unnecessary regulation. However, a failure to regulate negative externalities does not make for a free market; it actually results in a dysfunctional market that encourages agents to pass some of their costs on to others. To put it another way, governments (which represent the people of a nation) allow businesses to harvest or otherwise utilize their nation-state's natural resources (i.e. oil fields, lumber forests, fish/game, etc) for a cut of the profits. Why shouldn't the same apply when businesses use the air or water (via pollution) that belongs to a nation-state? What is this sir? Is this a reasonable, well thought out stance on capitalism and regulation? This has no place on the Internet. TL should ban you for posts like this.
Don't worry. Ron Paul is out of the race. I think it's safe to talk about regulation like adults now.
On June 18 2012 10:38 Papulatus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:39 Lightwip wrote:
Obama has always been pretty vocally pro-immigration for good immigrants, and Romney against immigration. Romney has responded with his disapproval.
Nothing of real significance, except it might hurt Romney with Hispanic voters. Why would you say Romney is against immigration? In fact, Romney has been rather vocal about his support for legal immigration.
Romney's stance on immigration is essentially build a fence, kick everyone who's here illegally out regardless of how or why they're here or how long they've been here, and then create an entirely new identification system for all non citizens.
http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Immigration.php
Even if it were somehow possible to seal the border, you couldn't possibly deport everyone who came here illegally. If you somehow managed to do that, it wouldn't be a compassionate or moral solution. There are millions of professional, educated, producive adults with no criminal record who were brought to the US illegally as children. They had no say in the matter, and have contributed to society since then. In what way is kicking these people out a smart plan? In what way is it morally right?
Any immigration policy that doesn't include a way to deal with illegal immigrants who are already in the US (short of deporting all of them) is not a serious policy. While Romney pays lip service to legal immigration, his position is clearly anti-immigrant and anti-immigration. He's playing to the xenophobic/ethnocentric wing of his party. I'd be much more worried if I thought he actually believed it, but it's bad enough that he's willing to take this stance for political reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
