Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Why isn't Sharron Angle in jail? [DOMESTIC TERRORISM]

12467

Posts

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    That conservatives are the only ones talking about rounding up political opponents and putting them in camps doesn't speak well of their beliefs about resolving political differences.

    And in the case of Joe Arpaio, not just talking about it.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    I never said that Republicans don't think that Democrats are socialists out to "fundamentally change"/destroy America. I said that Republicans think that Democrats believe that it is the best thing for the country and/or world

    So you don't think they're bad people, you just think they're trying to do what's best, which for them is destroy America.

    Right.

    Your posts here have been all kinds of weird conflations. Like "Angle is an idiot" and "Democrats are going to kill old people".

    I think that Democrats want to change America. I think Obama sort of ran on that idea. Now, if you change something I like into something I don't like, then you've effectively "destroyed" it. Your purity of intention or moral character is not contingent on you liking the same things I do. Conversely, you seem to heavily imply that my defense of Republicans reflects negatively on my character, which bolsters the point I was making earlier that Democrats and like-minded individuals assume that a Republican or conservative can't have a good character or good motivations.

    Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Democrat advisor to President Obama, has suggested that a pragmatic health system would waste resources if they guaranteed healthcare for elderly citizens with dementia or other conditions that indicated that they were no longer "useful." So, I've got an example of a Democrat willing to kill old people for the common good. I listened to a speech he delivered and found it to be quite chilling. However, I know that the average American voter wants free (or at least really cheap) health care that will keep working on them until they've been a corpse on a respirator for at least five years, so any plan that has feds kicking batty old ladies off life support is not likely to last long.

    I was attempting to be humorous in regards to the "FEMA Concentration Camps" issue. If someone around here believes that is going to happen, and wishes it to be discussed more seriously, I can accomodate.

  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    "Death Panels for Grandma!" Worst-case outcome. Every society with a national health service has some methodology for determining what treatments and medications will be covered by the plan. "Death Panel" is a melodramatic way of describing the process.

    Oh, this is ridiculous. Every society has a mechanism for rationing health care, because health care isn't an infinite resource. The method used by the U.S. until now has been "how much money do you have?" The Democratic Party generally believes this is a pretty crappy way to do things, which Republicans apparently do not agree with.

    ...
    "FEMA Concentration Camps" Projecting intent. Again, gonna have to say that this is one of those things that I'd get laughed at for if I suggested to the average Republican that I know, and the same goes for "Birthers." However, it's a projection of Democrat intent to say that they'll eventually round conservatives up for treason (or whatever reason legendary Democrat Franklin D Roosevelt used to arrest the Japanese). Signs that Democrats intend to make being a Republican a crime would include an increase in people calling for the arrest of Sharron Angle.

    This is likewise pretty laughworthy; "projection" isn't something you do when you're honestly interpreting the motivations of another party, it's when you interpret their actions through the lens of your own motivation. That conservatives are the only ones talking about rounding up political opponents and putting them in camps doesn't speak well of their beliefs about resolving political differences.

    The "how much money do you have" approach is philosophically superior to governmental fiat in the eyes of some people.

    I was parroting Octoparrot's use of the term projection to mean predicting, with or without some degree of realism, a future outcome. I was aware of, and did not intend to use, the Freudian concept.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    The american health care system has "death panels" right now. There are groups of people who decide who will receive care and whose condition is too terrible for it to be worthwhile (i.e. profitable.) We call them insurance companies.

    The discussion of the point at which we stop providing care for the elderly or the very sick is an important one to have because our resources are not infinite and need to be assigned in a way that makes sense, and also because it speaks to what the goals of our health care system are. The Democratic Party and particularly the Obama administration are in the process of bringing this discussion into the public consciousness so that we can have it in a mature way, and the Republican Party is interested in talking about death panels and perpetuating a system in which the care you receive is directly tied to how much you are able to pay for it. That isn't me being melodramatic or me exaggerating the republican position, these are the policies they vote in favor of and how they conduct themselves in the media.

    edit: also the "some people" who are in favor of the "how much money do you have" system are the people getting the money, and basically nobody else.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    I never said that Republicans don't think that Democrats are socialists out to "fundamentally change"/destroy America. I said that Republicans think that Democrats believe that it is the best thing for the country and/or world

    So you don't think they're bad people, you just think they're trying to do what's best, which for them is destroy America.

    Right.

    Your posts here have been all kinds of weird conflations. Like "Angle is an idiot" and "Democrats are going to kill old people".

    I think that Democrats want to change America. I think Obama sort of ran on that idea. Now, if you change something I like into something I don't like, then you've effectively "destroyed" it. Your purity of intention or moral character is not contingent on you liking the same things I do. Conversely, you seem to heavily imply that my defense of Republicans reflects negatively on my character, which bolsters the point I was making earlier that Democrats and like-minded individuals assume that a Republican or conservative can't have a good character or good motivations.

    Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Democrat advisor to President Obama, has suggested that a pragmatic health system would waste resources if they guaranteed healthcare for elderly citizens with dementia or other conditions that indicated that they were no longer "useful." So, I've got an example of a Democrat willing to kill old people for the common good. I listened to a speech he delivered and found it to be quite chilling. However, I know that the average American voter wants free (or at least really cheap) health care that will keep working on them until they've been a corpse on a respirator for at least five years, so any plan that has feds kicking batty old ladies off life support is not likely to last long.

    I was attempting to be humorous in regards to the "FEMA Concentration Camps" issue. If someone around here believes that is going to happen, and wishes it to be discussed more seriously, I can accomodate.

    The cognitive dissonance in this post is so great I'm actually compelled to work on this shit project my boss has me on than parse it out.

    sig.jpg
  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    also the "some people" who are in favor of the "how much money do you have" system are the people getting the money, and basically nobody else.

    This is simply not true.

    There is no argument for the socialization of healthcare that cannot be made for the socialization of anything deemed "necessary." There are people of all economic brackets who support capitalism over socialism.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    also the "some people" who are in favor of the "how much money do you have" system are the people getting the money, and basically nobody else.

    This is simply not true.

    There is no argument for the socialization of healthcare that cannot be made for the socialization of anything deemed "necessary." There are people of all economic brackets who support capitalism over socialism.

    In what way is a system that uses money as a gateway to health care superior than one that uses merit, need, and expected results as one instead?

    And I don't think less of you for being a republican. I think less of you for being an apologist for the worst of conservative rhetoric while trying to condemn democrats and liberals for theirs.

    sig.jpg
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Aaron Hernandez shot me through the heartRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    also the "some people" who are in favor of the "how much money do you have" system are the people getting the money, and basically nobody else.

    This is simply not true.

    There is no argument for the socialization of healthcare that cannot be made for the socialization of anything deemed "necessary." There are people of all economic brackets who support capitalism over socialism.

    Yes.

    I do remember the video of the guy who recieved VA benefits and loved it and also said the government should have nothing to do with healthcare.

    Spoiler:
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I always enjoy it when people talk about the difference between "socialism" and "capitalism" as though that distinction means anything absent a discussion of outcomes.

    "Capitalism" in the american health care system has produced pretty crappy outcomes by basically every measurement of how a health care system works. We spend more money on it than any western country, and by basically any measure of public health you want to pick, we get less out of it. But my god, we can't have a "socialist"* system, whatever that means.

    *Spoiler alert!
    Spoiler:

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Our current insurance models result in companies that make money by not providing the services they were paid to provide.

    Yay unfettered markets!

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    also the "some people" who are in favor of the "how much money do you have" system are the people getting the money, and basically nobody else.

    This is simply not true.

    There is no argument for the socialization of healthcare that cannot be made for the socialization of anything deemed "necessary." There are people of all economic brackets who support capitalism over socialism.

    In what way is a system that uses money as a gateway to health care superior than one that uses merit, need, and expected results as one instead?

    And I don't think less of you for being a republican. I think less of you for being an apologist for the worst of conservative rhetoric while trying to condemn democrats and liberals for theirs.

    And for calling people "Democrat advisors". That's just petty, man. Is typing those extra two letters so hard?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    6a00d83451c45669e201348890043c970c-550wi

    From this.
    We can argue about which metric is best to describe the quality of a health care system, but it almost doesn’t matter what you pick. Don’t like population statistics? Fine. Choose another. But unless you think the only important thing is how many MRI machines are available, we’re still going to look bad. Not only does the system not perform up to snuff, but pretty much every stakeholder I discussed agreed that it’s not good.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    also the "some people" who are in favor of the "how much money do you have" system are the people getting the money, and basically nobody else.

    This is simply not true.

    There is no argument for the socialization of healthcare that cannot be made for the socialization of anything deemed "necessary." There are people of all economic brackets who support capitalism over socialism.

    In what way is a system that uses money as a gateway to health care superior than one that uses merit, need, and expected results as one instead?

    And I don't think less of you for being a republican. I think less of you for being an apologist for the worst of conservative rhetoric while trying to condemn democrats and liberals for theirs.

    And for calling people "Democrat advisors". That's just petty, man. Is typing those extra two letters so hard?

    hmm?

    sig.jpg
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    also the "some people" who are in favor of the "how much money do you have" system are the people getting the money, and basically nobody else.

    This is simply not true.

    There is no argument for the socialization of healthcare that cannot be made for the socialization of anything deemed "necessary." There are people of all economic brackets who support capitalism over socialism.

    In what way is a system that uses money as a gateway to health care superior than one that uses merit, need, and expected results as one instead?

    And I don't think less of you for being a republican. I think less of you for being an apologist for the worst of conservative rhetoric while trying to condemn democrats and liberals for theirs.

    And for calling people "Democrat advisors". That's just petty, man. Is typing those extra two letters so hard?

    hmm?

    "Democrat" versus "Democratic". John Kerry is not a Democrat Senator, he's a Democratic Senator.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    When you see "Democrat" used as an adjective ("Democrat Senator" or "Democrat Advisor") it's usually an indication that the speaker/writer listens to a lot of Right Wing talk radio.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    also the "some people" who are in favor of the "how much money do you have" system are the people getting the money, and basically nobody else.

    This is simply not true.

    There is no argument for the socialization of healthcare that cannot be made for the socialization of anything deemed "necessary." There are people of all economic brackets who support capitalism over socialism.

    You are assuming that "people of all economic brackets" are operating under sound logic.

    It's less an issue of socializing things deemed necessary, as it is socializing things that deal with human lives, since companies prioritize profits over human lives on a daily basis.

    Companies will actually weigh out the costs and benefits associated with breaking the law...ex: CVS selling expired prescriptions and getting fined a few thousand after raking in millions. They did this knowingly and it could have killed people.

    Not all companies do this - but a company's first priority is profits, not people. This is more true when a company is public.

    sig.jpg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick, I'd love for you to stick around and answer this question, one that I think is pretty fair:
    In what way is a system that uses money as a gateway to health care superior than one that uses merit, need, and expected results as one instead?

    sig.jpg
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick, I'd love for you to stick around and answer this question, one that I think is pretty fair:
    In what way is a system that uses money as a gateway to health care superior than one that uses merit, need, and expected results as one instead?

    It's capitalist, and not socialist. People want capitalism.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Also, we as a country need to have a conversation about end of life care. Because not facing up to the fact that people die, and should be allowed to die, is both cruel and expensive.

    I would like to reiterate the whole thing about there already being limits on healthcare, except they are money limits, which is pretty morally abhorrent.

    Also, fuck capitalist/socialist. The best economy is one that uses the best aspects of both.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick, I'd love for you to stick around and answer this question, one that I think is pretty fair:
    In what way is a system that uses money as a gateway to health care superior than one that uses merit, need, and expected results as one instead?

    It's capitalist, and not socialist. People want capitalism.

    The snuggie of political arguments, one size fits all.

    sig.jpg
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    also the "some people" who are in favor of the "how much money do you have" system are the people getting the money, and basically nobody else.

    This is simply not true.

    There is no argument for the socialization of healthcare that cannot be made for the socialization of anything deemed "necessary." There are people of all economic brackets who support capitalism over socialism.

    I support capitalism over socialism too.


    Except, you know, when it fails so tremendously as the american healthcare system.

  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    First, the question of which healthcare system is better based on whether they depend on money is a dishonest question. All healthcare systems depend on money (money being an abstraction for calculating the value of resources). The question is whether the money is spent by the individual, a corporation that acts as an intermediary for the individual, or the government acting as intermediary for the individual. You are inserting the subjective assumption that being denied healthcare because you lack money is morally superior to being denied healthcare because the government lacks the money.

    I have not, in any of my posts, upheld the Republican position to be morally superior. I've stated that one can be a decent person and hold Republican positions, as one can be a decent person and hold Democrat positions. If I have "apologized" for the worst Republican rhetoric, it has only been to suggest that equally hyperbolic Democrat rhetoric exists and should be held to the same standard.

    I have also been critical of the tendency to call Republicans and conservatives "tea-baggers" and "shit-heels" while simultaneously bemoaning the inability of certain Republicans and conservatives to be more civil.

    Now I've got people bugging out on me and demanding to know WHY GRANDMA HAS TO DIE FOR MY DIRTY, DIRTY MONEY?!?! I think there's an answer to that question that is more complex than "D=GOOD, R=BAD."

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    also the "some people" who are in favor of the "how much money do you have" system are the people getting the money, and basically nobody else.

    This is simply not true.

    There is no argument for the socialization of healthcare that cannot be made for the socialization of anything deemed "necessary."

    Like the police or fire men or clean air or roads.

    You know, services provided by the government to keep me from dying.

    PSN: allenquid
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Arturick wrote: »
    also the "some people" who are in favor of the "how much money do you have" system are the people getting the money, and basically nobody else.

    This is simply not true.

    There is no argument for the socialization of healthcare that cannot be made for the socialization of anything deemed "necessary."

    Like the police or fire men or clean air or roads.

    You know, services provided by the government to keep me from dying.

    Yeah I don't get it.

    Do you think there are a lot of things that are necessary to socialize? I don't really think there are.

  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Arturick wrote: »
    also the "some people" who are in favor of the "how much money do you have" system are the people getting the money, and basically nobody else.

    This is simply not true.

    There is no argument for the socialization of healthcare that cannot be made for the socialization of anything deemed "necessary."

    Like the police or fire men or clean air or roads.

    You know, services provided by the government to keep me from dying.


    The majority of those services are handled by state and local governments, which Republicans acknowledge as a legitimate source of social services and consider more responsive to the needs of the electorate than a federal agency which would necessarily have to cover a wider array of situations.

    Republicans feel that the transition of power from the state to the federal level, minus any real reduction in the size of the state government, leads to rampant corruption which goes unnoticed by an electorate fixated on national politics instead of local.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Hahahaha. No they don't. State's rights is a boondoggle and always has been.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Republicans feel that the transition of power from the state to the federal level, minus any real reduction in the size of the state government, leads to rampant corruption which goes unnoticed by an electorate fixated on national politics instead of local.

    Unfortunately, Republicans have yet to prove that corruption is any worse in Congress than in the state legislatures.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Arturick wrote: »
    also the "some people" who are in favor of the "how much money do you have" system are the people getting the money, and basically nobody else.

    This is simply not true.

    There is no argument for the socialization of healthcare that cannot be made for the socialization of anything deemed "necessary."

    Like the police or fire men or clean air or roads.

    You know, services provided by the government to keep me from dying.


    The majority of those services are handled by state and local governments, which Republicans acknowledge as a legitimate source of social services and consider more responsive to the needs of the electorate than a federal agency which would necessarily have to cover a wider array of situations.

    Republicans feel that the transition of power from the state to the federal level, minus any real reduction in the size of the state government, leads to rampant corruption which goes unnoticed by an electorate fixated on national politics instead of local.

    My healthcare provided by the federal government is way better than the no health care provided to me by capitalism.

    But that's neither here nor there. State government is still government. It is socialism. It is not capitalism. I don't see any Republicans rallying for states to provide health care to their citizens.

    PSN: allenquid
  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Arturick wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Arturick wrote: »
    also the "some people" who are in favor of the "how much money do you have" system are the people getting the money, and basically nobody else.

    This is simply not true.

    There is no argument for the socialization of healthcare that cannot be made for the socialization of anything deemed "necessary."

    Like the police or fire men or clean air or roads.

    You know, services provided by the government to keep me from dying.


    The majority of those services are handled by state and local governments, which Republicans acknowledge as a legitimate source of social services and consider more responsive to the needs of the electorate than a federal agency which would necessarily have to cover a wider array of situations.

    Republicans feel that the transition of power from the state to the federal level, minus any real reduction in the size of the state government, leads to rampant corruption which goes unnoticed by an electorate fixated on national politics instead of local.

    My healthcare provided by the federal government is way better than the no health care provided to me by capitalism.

    But that's neither here nor there. State government is still government. It is socialism. It is not capitalism. I don't see any Republicans rallying for states to provide health care to their citizens.

    Republican Governor and Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney was credited with/blamed for the creation of a state funded healthcare system in Massachusetts.

    That aside, conservative ideology is not universally anti-government, or even all a certain percentage of anti-government. A fiscal conservative could range from an anarchist to someone who allows for government control of any number of things. Conservatives praise the nature of the state/federal relationship because it allows radically different viewpoints to be explored in the 50 little laboratories of the states rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all solution on the federal level. A conservative in Illinois might not want Illinois to have universal health care, but does not care if California does. Also, a conservative in a state that adopts numerous programs that he disagrees with has the option of moving to, and subsequently reinforcing, a predominantly conservative state.

    When "progressive" policies are adopted on the federal level, the conservative basically has to suck it up or leave the country.

  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Hahahaha. No they don't. State's rights is a boondoggle and always has been.

    Okay, I'm representing the conservative position as not monstrous, so I'm lying. Shall I just assume everything you tell me is a lie as well?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Hahahaha. No they don't. State's rights is a boondoggle and always has been.

    Okay, I'm representing the conservative position as not monstrous, so I'm lying. Shall I just assume everything you tell me is a lie as well?

    It's not that it's monstrous, it's that it's enormously hypocritical. It's state's rights when we want something the states are doing but the feds don't like, but if a state does something we don't like, let's ban it at the federal level. For example, gay marriage.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Hahahaha. No they don't. State's rights is a boondoggle and always has been.

    Okay, I'm representing the conservative position as not monstrous, so I'm lying. Shall I just assume everything you tell me is a lie as well?

    It's not that it's monstrous, it's that it's enormously hypocritical. It's state's rights when we want something the states are doing but the feds don't like, but if a state does something we don't like, let's ban it at the federal level. For example, gay marriage.

    Or, to go a bit more granular, when municipalities in my home state started passing stricter anti smoking laws targeting bars, the conservatives went running to the state to preempt all the municipalities.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Hahahaha. No they don't. State's rights is a boondoggle and always has been.

    Okay, I'm representing the conservative position as not monstrous, so I'm lying. Shall I just assume everything you tell me is a lie as well?

    It's not that it's monstrous, it's that it's enormously hypocritical. It's state's rights when we want something the states are doing but the feds don't like, but if a state does something we don't like, let's ban it at the federal level. For example, gay marriage.

    Or, to go a bit more granular, when municipalities in my home state started passing stricter anti smoking laws targeting bars, the conservatives went running to the state to preempt all the municipalities.
    This happens with Philadelphia and Pennsylvania every week it seems like.

    Philly passes a smoking ban, the Republicans in Harrisburg that got there by running against Philly preempt it. Philly institutes a green jobs fund, Harrisburg tries to put stipulations on it to make it unusable. Philly hires union workers for something or other, Harrisburg strips funding from the city.

    If it was really about returning control to smaller delineations of government they'd just butt the hell out.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Hahahaha. No they don't. State's rights is a boondoggle and always has been.

    Okay, I'm representing the conservative position as not monstrous, so I'm lying. Shall I just assume everything you tell me is a lie as well?

    It's not that it's monstrous, it's that it's enormously hypocritical. It's state's rights when we want something the states are doing but the feds don't like, but if a state does something we don't like, let's ban it at the federal level. For example, gay marriage.

    The Republican platform runs into certain inconsistencies in the name of the "big tent." The traditional Republican base consists of a sometimes overlapping coalition of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and defense hawks/nationalists. These groups don't always agree on things, and I personally would prefer a multi-party system where each of these groups could be more adequately represented.

    That said, marriage impacts the federal government, most notably in terms of taxation of a household vs. taxation of individuals. So, the government must choose at some point to officially define marriage, reduce taxes for any group of individuals who describe themselves as married, or change the tax laws to eliminate the marriage benefit.

    The marriage benefit is really popular, so eventually the federal government will officially define marriage. A lot of people will disagree with that definition.

  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Arturick wrote: »
    Hahahaha. No they don't. State's rights is a boondoggle and always has been.

    Okay, I'm representing the conservative position as not monstrous, so I'm lying. Shall I just assume everything you tell me is a lie as well?

    It's not that it's monstrous, it's that it's enormously hypocritical. It's state's rights when we want something the states are doing but the feds don't like, but if a state does something we don't like, let's ban it at the federal level. For example, gay marriage.

    Or, to go a bit more granular, when municipalities in my home state started passing stricter anti smoking laws targeting bars, the conservatives went running to the state to preempt all the municipalities.
    This happens with Philadelphia and Pennsylvania every week it seems like.

    Philly passes a smoking ban, the Republicans in Harrisburg that got there by running against Philly preempt it. Philly institutes a green jobs fund, Harrisburg tries to put stipulations on it to make it unusable. Philly hires union workers for something or other, Harrisburg strips funding from the city.

    If it was really about returning control to smaller delineations of government they'd just butt the hell out.

    Those Republicans are hypocrites.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Arturick wrote: »
    Hahahaha. No they don't. State's rights is a boondoggle and always has been.

    Okay, I'm representing the conservative position as not monstrous, so I'm lying. Shall I just assume everything you tell me is a lie as well?

    It's not that it's monstrous, it's that it's enormously hypocritical. It's state's rights when we want something the states are doing but the feds don't like, but if a state does something we don't like, let's ban it at the federal level. For example, gay marriage.

    Or, to go a bit more granular, when municipalities in my home state started passing stricter anti smoking laws targeting bars, the conservatives went running to the state to preempt all the municipalities.
    This happens with Philadelphia and Pennsylvania every week it seems like.

    Philly passes a smoking ban, the Republicans in Harrisburg that got there by running against Philly preempt it. Philly institutes a green jobs fund, Harrisburg tries to put stipulations on it to make it unusable. Philly hires union workers for something or other, Harrisburg strips funding from the city.

    If it was really about returning control to smaller delineations of government they'd just butt the hell out.

    Those Republicans are hypocrites.

    Or maybe you have a bad case of No True Scotsman.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I'm pretty much a federalist because I'm yet to see a state government that isn't fucked is a far more profound way than our federal government is.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Arturick wrote: »
    Hahahaha. No they don't. State's rights is a boondoggle and always has been.

    Okay, I'm representing the conservative position as not monstrous, so I'm lying. Shall I just assume everything you tell me is a lie as well?

    It's not that it's monstrous, it's that it's enormously hypocritical. It's state's rights when we want something the states are doing but the feds don't like, but if a state does something we don't like, let's ban it at the federal level. For example, gay marriage.

    Or, to go a bit more granular, when municipalities in my home state started passing stricter anti smoking laws targeting bars, the conservatives went running to the state to preempt all the municipalities.
    This happens with Philadelphia and Pennsylvania every week it seems like.

    Philly passes a smoking ban, the Republicans in Harrisburg that got there by running against Philly preempt it. Philly institutes a green jobs fund, Harrisburg tries to put stipulations on it to make it unusable. Philly hires union workers for something or other, Harrisburg strips funding from the city.

    If it was really about returning control to smaller delineations of government they'd just butt the hell out.

    Those Republicans are hypocrites.
    That would be the entire Pennsylvania State Republican delegation.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    See, we're about state's rights! Except when we're not because religious conservatives get annoyed.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I'm pretty much a federalist because I'm yet to see a state government that isn't fucked is a far more profound way than our federal government is.

    Michigan and New Jersey, among others, would like a word with you.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
Sign In or Register to comment.