Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

My point being that I think it's coming here to the U.S. of A. (the control by the government of speech and thought)

Scooby? Is that you?

This seems like a Pio or FF post, or a (admittedly funny) Rimbaud troll; not a geezer post.

 

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

I think the same argument could have been made about "moving the line" when it came to expanding women's opportunities in society.

Even buying your "move the line" argument as a premise (which is doubtful because the line of what constitutes acceptable relationships has jumped around throughout history), in itself it is not conclusive.

As for the slippery slope argument, that's always a fallacy. One might as well say that by permitting drinking at bars we are on the way to mandating drinking while driving.

I'm easily confused. Are we still talking about regulating what may or may not be preached as sin in churches? It may seem absurd right now; I still think it's coming.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

That's why, as Mike Huckabee said, "We're all Catholics right now". At least those of us who value freedom of religion.

Does that mean everybody has to back drug legalizing because "we are all Animists now"?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

I think the same argument could have been made about "moving the line" when it came to expanding women's opportunities in society.

Even buying your "move the line" argument as a premise (which is doubtful because the line of what constitutes acceptable relationships has jumped around throughout history), in itself it is not conclusive.

As for the slippery slope argument, that's always a fallacy. One might as well say that by permitting drinking at bars we are on the way to mandating drinking while driving.

See. You define away any concern and then pretend that your opponents have nothing legitimate to contend about. You won't even admit something as basic and as obvious as the fact that you're redefining what has overwhelmingly been the definition of marriage in world history. Classic. Shows why there's no point in trying to have a reasoned discussion.

Slippery slopes exist and occur all over the place.

I don't follow your drinking/bar argument.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

I guess I should just stop trying to find any way of trying to define my "positions" in terms of today's nomenclature.....

Generally, I find myself sympathetic to the objectives of the left while simultaneously being highly critical of their methods, which to me range from misguided to outright despicable*.

I find that I appreciate the methods and principles of conservatives while disliking their social values and expressed objectives.

So I like to use the tools of the right to accomplish the goals of the left.


If the term "Marxist" hadn't been co-opted to mean something different than what Mr. Marx himself had said, .... ,I guess you could say "Marxian" is the best description. When Marx said "workers of the world, cast off your chains" it was the chains of oppresive government coercion that they were casting off; government to him is merely one tool used by the rich and powerful so that they can remain rich and powerful.

Or you might say my politics was inspired by The Who:
> "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
> "won't get fooled again" (fingers crossed! )


"From each according to ability, to each according to need" is a terrible, terrible way to run a government, and a loving, lovely way to organize a family, or a society. Try to impose it from without, and you get the worst kind of tyranny; voluntarily embrace it from within, and you've got a decent shot at utopia.







* I have actually heard first-hand conversations among Congressional aides and party strategists in which they calmly discuss creating two permanent contituencies by promoting more extensive government welfare programs at the same time, one among the people who come to rely on those programs for their well-being, and another among the people who come to rely on being employed by government to administer those programs. There was no caring nor compassion at all; simply a matter-of-fact calculation of dispassionate strategic interest.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

Does that mean everybody has to back drug legalizing because "we are all Animists now"?

Don't follow. You need to work on your examples today. Surely you can grasp what Huckabee meant? I wouldn't expect some others around here to grasp it or admit they do, but I would expect you to.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

I'm easily confused. Are we still talking about regulating what may or may not be preached as sin in churches? It may seem absurd right now; I still think it's coming.

You can preach anything you want as sin in church, and you always will be able to.

 

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

You can preach anything you want as sin in church, and you always will be able to.

That's what the common people in Sweden and Finland used to say. Now they're fined pretty heavily if they observe the biblical condemnation of sodomy. Every church is public in some places. That's where I think we are headed.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

You can preach anything you want as sin in church, and you always will be able to.

Yup, if only those Christian Americans would keep what they think and say in church! It's not like they're fully American and have freedom of speech in the broad sense that non-Christian Americans should have. Just box 'em into those church buildings and keep 'em there and don't let 'em out. You don't realize how scary you sound at times. And you don't even realize it. You just say it more openly and honestly than some of the others around here.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

That's what the common people in Sweden and Finland used to say. Now they're fined pretty heavily if they observe the biblical condemnation of sodomy. Every church is public in some places. That's where I think we are headed.

I'd give that quote about not learning from history and doom and all, but it would fall on mostly deaf ears.

 

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

That's what the common people in Sweden and Finland used to say. Now they're fined pretty heavily if they observe the biblical condemnation of sodomy. Every church is public in some places. That's where I think we are headed.

Now that I posted this, I wonder if it has changed in the last 15 year. It's possible that it has, but a quick google search was inconclusive.

Anyway, my main point is that I fear forced conformity to an institutionalized ideal.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

Don't follow. You need to work on your examples today. Surely you can grasp what Huckabee meant? I wouldn't expect some others around here to grasp it or admit they do, but I would expect you to.

I object to your extension "those of us who value freedom of religion." I value that freedom and I think what Huckabee said was silly and incorrect.

There are religious exclusions to some laws but not all. That's a political battle.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

There are religious exclusions to some laws but not all. That's a political battle.

So which is it when a religious organization that believes abortion is murder is required by law to offer abortifacient drugs to its employees?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

I object to your extension "those of us who value freedom of religion." I value that freedom and I think what Huckabee said was silly and incorrect.

There are religious exclusions to some laws but not all. That's a political battle.

And those exclusions are being shrunken as we speak. To some of us it's more than just a political battle. I think you honestly believe you value freedom of religion. But, you don't see the conflict between pushing something like gay rights and maintaining religious freedom as I do, so forgive me if I'm more concerned than you are.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

So which is it when a religious organization that believes abortion is murder is required by law to offer abortifacient drugs to its employees?

Talk about intrusive government! Although my guess is in ten years we'll look back and realize this was child's play compared to what will eventually transpire.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

So which is it when a religious organization that believes abortion is murder is required by law to offer abortifacient drugs to its employees?

So, regardless of what my beliefs are if I work for a Catholic Institution I can't have the health care benefits that I want??

Nice.

This problem wouldn't exist if the United States hadn't stupidly attached Health Care to employment. Since we do (and it's the conservatives who want it that way) we get stuck in these stupid merry go round issues. Frankly if your so worried about providing women's health care services to your employees then just stop offering health care benefits. Give your employees a block grant (Hey, it's just like the Ryan plan) to go out and buy their own health insurance. Problem ****ing solved.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

So, regardless of what my beliefs are if I work for a Catholic Institution I can't have the health care benefits that I want??

Since you are male, why would you want an abortifacient drug?*


Snark aside, it was not "conservatives" who "wanted" health insurance tied to employment. That was a direct outcome of World War II wage - price controls (okay, I suppose for you FDR was a "conservative"..... ). Employers were not allowed to increase wages to attract and retain valuable employees, and they were allowed to offer improved fringe benefits, so that compensation that normally would have flowed into wages was directed into fringe benefits instead. The fact that fringe benefits are tax-deductible to the employer and not taxable income to the employee was never a partisan issue.



You and I do agree that having an individual health insurance market for everyone completely separate from employment status would be preferable to what we have now.




You don't see the progression? the government meddles in the marketplace, produces unintended consequences that muck things up, tries to address said consequences with more meddling, which in turn produce more unintended consequences that muck things up even more....

McCain and Obama were both on the right track in 2008. Obama did not follow through on his primary campaign however (you may recall he criticized Hillary when she proposed a mandate!); McCain wanted the value of health insurance included in taxable income.




* I believe there is a legal principle that one must have "standing" before one can bring suit. I'm generally amused whenever men debate women's reproductive issues. Now, when it comes to cancer treatment, that's different, many of us have sisters, wives, daughters.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

I object to your extension "those of us who value freedom of religion." I value that freedom and I think what Huckabee said was silly and incorrect.

There are religious exclusions to some laws but not all. That's a political battle.

This from the guy who thought saying nice things about America was "political," and should be avoided. And on the 4th of July, yet! Let's just say he has a different definition of "valuing freedom" than many of us have.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

If you figure it out, let me know - I certainly can't.

On the "conservative" (common usage) side, I'm:
anti-union (especially public unions)
anti big government and high taxes
pro strong military
generally skeptical of social programs (especially those that are designed to mask the pain of a problem without solving it)
anti-universal health care (somebody has to do the rationing, and I distrust business less than government on this one)
pro-business but anti-bailout (let business owners keep the rewards for the risks they take and the hard work they do, and keep excessive regulation out of their way, but don't pour good taxpayer money after bad private investments)
anti affirmative action.

On the "liberal" side, I'm:
pro-choice
pro gun control (in cases where it actually aligns with common sense and has a prayer of actually doing some good)
pro civil rights (read: gay marriage)
pro financial regulation (let the government be the rules committee and referee but don't let them play the game or choose the winners)
pro marijuana (I've only ever seen one joint in my life and have no interest in drugs whatsoever, but live and let live)
pro using taxpayer funds to develop alternate energy as long as its something that's meaningful and sustainable (sorry, solar and wind).

Besides which, I don't see anything in my post #641 that advocates a liberal position. I perceive that post to be entirely factual - "lock step" is not a pejorative term; it's the reality of the situation. The guy I quoted is one of the arch-conservatives - if using his words is "parroting a liberal position" then I think the cats and dogs are finally living together.

This is me as well for the most part though I am in favor of massive military cuts since it is wasteful and we are broke. I do support universal health care only because the system as is is a piece of crap.

I guess you are a hardline lefty since apparently I am too

(further proof Bob has gone off the deep end)

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

Not sure I am 100% am following but...



From what I've seen, the dems would get rid of PACs tomorrow. But if PACS do exist and dems don't use them for what they're most effective (negative campaigning) while the GOP does...dems risk of losing the election, which would also result in absolutely no reason for the GOP to ever want to get rid of PACs.

His Newtoneness and the groups that support him, are free to say anything they want. But it may be time to jettison the pose that this nasty Chicago pol is something he's not. If the "ends justify the means," then so be it. But please, spare us the pieties.