Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

#502 Jan 18 2012 at 11:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
The problem with the "they'll add it back at a lower rate" argument is that the safest investment in the world, at the moment, and where most high net worth income is currently parked is.....loaning money to the US government.


And? So 100% of all investment is in the form of loaning money to the government? It's not? Then "everything else being equal", the share that last year went into job creating investments might be higher or lower this year. And that share may change based on tax changes. It's not like loaning to the government will become less profitable relatively speaking if the tax rates change, right?

Quote:
In a system without this option, it's a slightly better argument, but still flawed, but the actual dynamic tends to be that the more wealth high net worth individuals have, the safer investments they seek, for obvious reasons. Taxing them more actually leads them to take on *more* risk, not less, as they seek better return to offset the decline in real income lost through taxation.


Individuals, yes. The market as a whole? No. I'd explain this to you, but you honestly should already know better. "high risk" is meaningless as a market-wide term. Rate of return is normalized across risks/reward. If something is high risk, the reward is either worth it on average, or it is not. While an individual might take the risk and maybe make out big, the market as a whole will consistently return a result based on that risk/reward relationship.


That also doesn't change if you change tax rates. So if I need to earn X% return on my investment to offset profit losses due to higher taxes, it's not going to affect my investment decisions much (although it will marginally reduce the amount I have to reinvest each cycle). The biggest change in those decisions isn't about risk, but about long versus short term (short being kinda relative here). As I said earlier, about the longest term investment which can be made is one which involves employment. If you think about all the capital expenses required before you ever sit someone down in a workplace to do something productive for you, you'll realize why this is so. Then when you think about how long those employees must work at some productive pursuit before earning enough money to pay off that initial capital expense, you realize that it's even more so.

While that may not be a direct choice by someone investing in the market, it *is* going to affect the choices made by those he's investing in. It affects whether that company I bought stock in decides to expand their facilities and hire another hundred employees, or whether they'll just sit on existing profits and pay out dividends for a few years while weathering the storm.


I also think you're misunderstanding the idea of "lost income due to taxation". It's not like the wealthy investor loses income at all. He's making the exact same amount of money (assuming he's not living right at the edge of his total capital gains). It's about how much money he has to pull out of his investment pool to pay his salary (so to speak). Obviously this part is more relevant to capital gains taxes, but it's an important factor.

Let's say evil rich guy (let's call him Romney), has an investment portfolio worth $250M). Let's assume that he's invested in a bunch of different things, which earn a net growth of say $15M. Let's say that he wants to live on a modest $2m/year lifestyle. So, to do this, he must sell off assets from his investment portfolio sufficient to result in $2m after taxes. If taxes go up, he's not affected at all. He still gets his $2m/year allowance. All raising the capital gains tax rates does is determine how much he has to sell to end out with that $2m. You could raise capital gains to 80% and he could still live at the same level and would still be gaining net worth.


What it does is reduce the amount of money left over in his investment portfolio. Once we recognize that the amount past some arbitrary wealth point doesn't actually affect his standard of living at all, then we must realize that the wealth's primary effect is to benefit whatever the hell it's invested in at the moment. Now we can't know what that is. But everything else being equal, and assuming that job creation is some function of total market capitalization, then if we decrease the wealth relative to what it would have been, then we decrease the number of jobs relative to what it would have been.

Remember, we have to continually create new jobs to offset those that are lost all the time. We can't just keep the same amount of money doing the same things. It must always be growing, or we lose ground relatively speaking. Again, I'd explain why, but you should already know this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#503 Jan 18 2012 at 11:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts

And? So 100% of all investment is in the form of loaning money to the government? It's not? Then "everything else being equal", the share that last year went into job creating investments might be higher or lower this year. And that share may change based on tax changes. It's not like loaning to the government will become less profitable relatively speaking if the tax rates change, right?


No, it's exactly like that, actually. If you want to generate x amount of income at the lowest possible risk and can do it at essentially 0% risk with T-Bills, you will. If taxation causes you to be unable to accomplish the goal at 0% risk, you likely take on >0% risk by investing.

Again, fairly well understood. Risk aversion generally goes up as market volatility does, certainly has recently. Spurring the private equity market requires some sort of mechanism to move that money out of treasuries. Incredibly high demand for treasuries is one of the primary reasons the US GOVT can borrow essentially infinite money ATM at very low marginal interest rates. While "China owns us now!!" makes for scary rhetoric, the vast majority of that debt is held by US citizens.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#504 Jan 18 2012 at 11:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

You believe that because you believe that wealth distribution is correlated to social liberty. That's not the agenda of the right at all. The rights objective is to maximize social liberty as well (same goal as the left interestingly enough). However, the right believes that maximal social liberty occurs when people are lest interfered with in their actions and choices and the results of those actions and choices.


Sorry, I may have generalized too much. When I said "the right" I meant "viable GOP politicians and policy makers in the United States. I didn't mean "people who read Atlas Shrugged when they were 14 and felt their lives changed".


Politicians act based on what people demand of them Smash. You're trying to suggest that when politicians do not act on political principle, but rather some demand unrelated to those principles, we can still blame the principles for the result. But that's absurd. The terms "left" and "right" become meaningless in that case. You asked about agenda. If you want me to list off the whole set of things that a GOP politician might do that have nothing to do with the principles and agenda of the "right", then you're asking the wrong question.


There are a whole lot of people who don't understand the principles at all. They act based on fear and ignorance. But you can't point at what they do and what they demand and attempt to use that to paint an unrelated political philosophy in a negative light via some form of guilt by association. If you want to debate the philosophical principles, I'm all for it. If you want to sit around complaining because not everyone follows those principles, I'm not sure what purpose that serves.


Quote:
The entire social agenda of the viable US right is to limit personal freedom.


No, it's not. You've just been taught to interpret everything via that assumption and to weight actions based on criteria wholly different than a conservative does. Do you honestly think that conservatives sit around in rooms thinking up ways to limit people's freedoms? Doesn't it make more sense that they have completely different reasons for doing what they do, but you've been trained to interpret them as limiting freedom and then to assume that their motivation for doing so is the same.

Silly.


Quote:
I'm not sure how one could argue otherwise.


I'm not sure how one could argue what you just said. It's pure subjective interpretation. Stop assuming that when someone disagrees with you that it means that they really secretly agree with you, but want the opposite outcome. When we differ on social policy it's not because you want to help the poor and I want to hurt them, but because you and I disagree on what best helps the poor. No amount of you insisting that my ideas are hurtful make it true, and it certainly doesn't mean that my intent is to hurt someone.


For a group of people who always talk about accepting different ideas and opinions, liberals really don't do it very well.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#505 Jan 18 2012 at 11:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

And? So 100% of all investment is in the form of loaning money to the government? It's not? Then "everything else being equal", the share that last year went into job creating investments might be higher or lower this year. And that share may change based on tax changes. It's not like loaning to the government will become less profitable relatively speaking if the tax rates change, right?


No, it's exactly like that, actually. If you want to generate x amount of income at the lowest possible risk and can do it at essentially 0% risk with T-Bills, you will.


I'll ask again: Is 100% of all investment right now in T-bills?

If the answer is "no", then you're wrong. Can you see why?

Quote:
If taxation causes you to be unable to accomplish the goal at 0% risk, you likely take on >0% risk by investing.


Taxation doesn't affect the profit rate, just the resulting real profits after taxes. You get this, right? If an investment is a better risk/reward bet before taxes are raised, it'll still be a better bet afterwards. I'm puzzled that you can't figure this out.

Quote:
Again, fairly well understood. Risk aversion generally goes up as market volatility does, certainly has recently. Spurring the private equity market requires some sort of mechanism to move that money out of treasuries. Incredibly high demand for treasuries is one of the primary reasons the US GOVT can borrow essentially infinite money ATM at very low marginal interest rates. While "China owns us now!!" makes for scary rhetoric, the vast majority of that debt is held by US citizens.


I agree, to a point. But none of this touches on the question of whether raising taxes right now will help or hinder job growth (or have no effect at all). You're trying to argue that since T-bills are the best bet, that that's all anyone will invest in. But that clearly isn't true right now (the second part), so it's meaningless.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#506 Jan 18 2012 at 11:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts

Individuals, yes. The market as a whole? No. I'd explain this to you, but you honestly should already know better. "high risk" is meaningless as a market-wide term. Rate of return is normalized across risks/reward. If something is high risk, the reward is either worth it on average, or it is not. While an individual might take the risk and maybe make out big, the market as a whole will consistently return a result based on that risk/reward relationship.


One, this is a pointless distinction. Markets are places for individuals (or groups of individuals) to perform transactions.

Two, risk generalized across the market is still (substantially) non-zero risk.

Three, thirteen trillion in T-Bills isn't complicated to understand. Not only does the US sell all the debt it wants instantly, it sells it at near zero rates. This indicates there is overwhelming demand to buy more of this debt.

Most TARP money went straight into treasuries, because even investment bankers can't tolerate the current aggregate risk levels. To spur investment, you need to provide incentive to invest.

Again, pretty simple. If you give high income earners (or "allow them keep" if you prefer that phrasing) more net income, they most likely thing they will do with it (by a very wide margin currently) is to lend back to the US Govt at interest. Which creates more debt, but obviously less economic growth than the government getting that same money at 0%.

Not rocket science.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#507 Jan 19 2012 at 12:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts

Taxation doesn't affect the profit rate, just the resulting real profits after taxes. You get this, right? If an investment is a better risk/reward bet before taxes are raised, it'll still be a better bet afterwards. I'm puzzled that you can't figure this out.


It's not a better bet, currently, so that's a minor problem with your theory...

Also, are you assuming an efficient market where actors would risk 100 units at 50% chance of loss to return 201 units? That may be the problem. That was proven to be no-predictive of actual investment decades ago. Dan Kahneman won the Nobel for it in 2002, but it was known in the 70s that there was a strong bias towards risk aversion in markets.

No one has modeled anything based on the idea that actors are perfectly rational in a long time. If they did, the models would fail spectacularly. Markets are made of people. People made decisions irrationally, but predictably so.

It "feels" like raising taxes on high income earners during a recession would be the worst time, but in practice it doesn't actually work that way. In practice, there's no causal link between taxes and investment for the most part, but punishing lack of investment somehow (through high headline inflation say) has proven to be the best incentive. Raising taxes at the higher income levels would accomplish that. Setting cap gains to zero might, as well, but leads to numerous complications while obviously skyrocketing the national debt.

You think the debt is a bad idea at current levels, right?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#508 Jan 19 2012 at 12:14 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Quote:
You really don't see it? The market is not static. It doesn't even move up and down. It's constantly shifting.


In before CNN Money

"The dow shifted right 200 points today, a shift left was avoided by a rise in commodities that curbed this weeks downward shift in a lightly elliptical rise to the right. It should close further left then was expected."
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#509 Jan 19 2012 at 1:52 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
11,708 posts
catwho wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:


Why are you looking at pricing for one of the most expensive places to live and trying to pull that into your narrative?


Because Gbaji said 50-75K is "comfortably middle class" when I said it wasn't "not poor" in NYC. The article backs me up, with a couple having to approach the 100K mark there to afford a 2BR apartment.

ETA: It's actually pretty damn good where I live, for that matter.

Edited, Jan 18th 2012 8:51pm by catwho


No, it's assuming they are spending almost 6,000 a month for a 2BR apartment. No sane young middle class professional would do that. They should be looking for something in the 1.8k/mo. range. Something like this.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#510 Jan 19 2012 at 2:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,708 posts
Quote:

And? So 100% of all investment is in the form of loaning money to the government? It's not? Then "everything else being equal", the share that last year went into job creating investments might be higher or lower this year. And that share may change based on tax changes. It's not like loaning to the government will become less profitable relatively speaking if the tax rates change, right?


Yes it does, TBill pricing changes based on amount owed by the government; if they get more via taxes they sell less Tbills and the price stabilizes at a lower rate.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#511 Jan 19 2012 at 7:04 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Samira wrote:
I live in San Francisco, if that clarifies things.


I'm making a mental note of this. We're hoping to move out there in the next 3-4 years, and I'm definitely gonna have questions.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#512 Jan 19 2012 at 10:44 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
gbaji wrote:
The guy's only the first GOP non-incumbent to win both Iowa and New Hampshire ever.
So just for shits and giggles, looks like they're still counting in Iowa, and Santorum has a 34 vote lead.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#513 Jan 19 2012 at 10:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
Perry's out, btw.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#514 Jan 19 2012 at 11:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The guy's only the first GOP non-incumbent to win both Iowa and New Hampshire ever.
So just for shits and giggles, looks like they're still counting in Iowa, and Santorum has a 34 vote lead.

Watch out. I mentioned him leading by eight before and Gbaji got all petulant.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#515 Jan 19 2012 at 11:46 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
catwho wrote:


I couldn't help but follow the link from that page that led to this:

Quote:
Mark Wahlberg has apologized for remarks he made to Men’s Journal magazine about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In a reference to the planes downed by terrorists on Sept. 11, the star of the new film “Contraband” star said, “If I was on that plane with my kids, it wouldn’t have went down like it did. There would have been a lot of blood in that first-class cabin and then me saying, ‘OK, we’re going to land somewhere safely, don’t worry.’”


Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#516 Jan 19 2012 at 11:50 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
"My stunt double took care of it!"
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#517 Jan 19 2012 at 3:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
One, this is a pointless distinction. Markets are places for individuals (or groups of individuals) to perform transactions.


Yes, but the effects of their individual actions have a cumulative and (usually) relatively stable result. While the individual might make risky or non-risky choices, and some will win and some will lose, the overall market result with be pretty close to the risk/reward function. Obviously, the trick is that we don't always know the true risk/reward ratio. Which is why individuals take risks in the first place. It's not so much that they're trying to "beat the odds", but that they believe that the stated odds are wrong.


And if they are right, the market will reflect this. If the average return on a given type of investment is double what was predicted than that result was the *real* risk/reward ratio. The predictions were wrong is all. While there's always going to be small fluxuations, the trends are going to follow that rule.

Quote:
Three, thirteen trillion in T-Bills isn't complicated to understand. Not only does the US sell all the debt it wants instantly, it sells it at near zero rates. This indicates there is overwhelming demand to buy more of this debt.


Yes. Great. But since there is still money invested in other things, then someone out there is investing in stuff other than t-bills, right? We can ignore the money in tbills and ask what effect on the rest of the market will there be if those who are investing lose more money in taxes in each cycle than they do today? Everything else staying the same, we can expect less total investment in those parts of the market. And since job creating investments are a subset of that part of the market, it will *also* be affected to a similar degree.


I'm not sure why you keep obsessing on tbills.

Quote:
Most TARP money went straight into treasuries, because even investment bankers can't tolerate the current aggregate risk levels. To spur investment, you need to provide incentive to invest.


Ok. What do you suppose will do that? Higher costs on business? Higher taxes on those who engage in business? You're making a great argument for my case, but not so much for yours.

Quote:
Again, pretty simple. If you give high income earners (or "allow them keep" if you prefer that phrasing) more net income, they most likely thing they will do with it (by a very wide margin currently) is to lend back to the US Govt at interest. Which creates more debt, but obviously less economic growth than the government getting that same money at 0%.


Again though, you're looking at it backwards. I'm not saying to lower taxes, but to not raise them. If next year investors have slightly less money to (re)invest after taxes, which area of the market do you think they'll choose to reduce their investments in the most? Tbills? Or the other parts? And maybe even more from the job creating parts?

Starting to see my point yet? If, as you say, investors would prefer to invest in tbills, then any reduction in the amount they have to invest will first be reduced from investments in things other than tbills. If we agree that investing in tbills, while useful for the investor, isn't great for economic growth and certainly not for job creation, then raising taxes will have an adverse effect.


Get it?

Quote:
Not rocket science.


Yeah. It's not.

Quote:
Also, are you assuming an efficient market where actors would risk 100 units at 50% chance of loss to return 201 units? That may be the problem. That was proven to be no-predictive of actual investment decades ago. Dan Kahneman won the Nobel for it in 2002, but it was known in the 70s that there was a strong bias towards risk aversion in markets.

No one has modeled anything based on the idea that actors are perfectly rational in a long time. If they did, the models would fail spectacularly. Markets are made of people. People made decisions irrationally, but predictably so.


Yes. Which is why not every dollar gets invested in the "best" investment. Which is why assuming that that's all anyone will invest in if they have a choice is silly. People will invest in a variety of things. While we can predict (or even create) trends, some will always buck them to some degree. Some folks will continue to invest some money in job creating things, even when it appears that there are better and "safer" things to put money into. But the first things people will shift away from (in general) will be those which are seen to be higher risk, or lower reward, or which take longer to develop. As I've pointed out several times, job creation tends to fall into that category.

So, raising taxes will most heavily impact the very types of investments we want and need to promote job creation and economic growth. Is that really so hard to see?

Quote:
It "feels" like raising taxes on high income earners during a recession would be the worst time, but in practice it doesn't actually work that way.


Except that in practice, it's been true pretty much every time.

Quote:
In practice, there's no causal link between taxes and investment for the most part, but punishing lack of investment somehow (through high headline inflation say) has proven to be the best incentive.


That depends on how you decide something is causal. There's a hell of a lot of evidence for strong correlation, at least. Who gets to declare that just because nearly every time taxes were raised right after an economic downturn, that downturn lasted longer than average doesn't represent a causal relationship? Sounds like cart before the horse to me. Also, high inflation introduces other negative economic effects down the line which will tend to far outweigh the immediate positives. Remember the 70s?

Quote:
Raising taxes at the higher income levels would accomplish that. Setting cap gains to zero might, as well, but leads to numerous complications while obviously skyrocketing the national debt.


Heaven forbid we consider just *not* raising spending through the roof in the first place. Cause that's never worked. Oh wait! It did. In the early 80s. Then again in the early(is) 90s. Then again in the early 00s. In each case, we entered a downturn, but kept spending at moderate levels (just enough to deal with the cause of the downturn) and the economy recovered within 2 years. Hell. When you look at unemployment effects during those three recessions, the critical points are nearly clockwork 2 years apart to the month.

But not this time. Why do you suppose the Obama administration called summer 2010 the "summer of recovery"? It was because that was 2 years to the month (June I believe) from when unemployment started ticking upwards during the recession (lead up to it technically). They were looking at historical trends and saw the same thing I'm talking about and just assumed that this is what happens during downturns and their own actions didn't really matter.

But they did. Their actions did have an effect. It prevented the very recovery they were counting on to pay for all the spending they did. If this wasn't such a disaster and hardship for so many American's I'd laugh at the irony of it.

Quote:
You think the debt is a bad idea at current levels, right?



Yes. Which is why we should not have spent so much money on "recovery". Probably should have spent nothing at all. TARP was sufficient to correct the problem causing the downturn. Should have stopped there and we'd be in full recovery right now. At the risk of repeating rhetoric, it was the spending that screwed us, stupid. Raising taxes to pay for that spending will just compound the problem.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#518 Jan 19 2012 at 3:59 PM Rating: Good
You can say that the right wants to protect individual's freedoms all you want, but that doesn't make it true.

Both sides want to limit freedoms, but in different ways. The right wants to essentially turn this country into a theocracy, where it is illegal to do anything that the bible says is wrong. Why else would they care about the myriad of social issues that they are against?

The left wants to limit certain freedoms as well. I can agree that re-distribution of wealth infringes on the freedom of the wealthy. There's no denying that. It's not like we want to make everyone have the same amount of money though, we just want things a bit more just. Or I do anyways. I suppose I can't speak for all liberals in this country. The trickle down theory doesn't work, plain and simple. We still have people who are homeless, jobless, and destitute. Do some of them want to be that way? Probably. I don't think most of them do though.

Both sides clearly have different ideas of our inalienable rights too. If everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I think that includes a few things. Everyone has the right to healthcare, a roof over their head, access to education, etc.

I'm curious, what do you think "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means? Clearly the right doesn't believe that everyone has the right to healthcare, otherwise they wouldn't be in favor of cuts to Medicare, and against universal healthcare like every other industrialized nation has.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#519 Jan 19 2012 at 4:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
You can say that the right wants to protect individual's freedoms all you want, but that doesn't make it true.


It doesn't mean that everyone who identifies themselves as a conservative always acts in ways which protect individual freedoms. It does mean that the principles at work *are* intended to do so. If someone acts otherwise, then they are not acting on those principles. It's silly to then argue that "the right" doesn't want to do that. IMO the label of "right" becomes meaningless if you do.

Quote:
Both sides want to limit freedoms, but in different ways. The right wants to essentially turn this country into a theocracy, where it is illegal to do anything that the bible says is wrong. Why else would they care about the myriad of social issues that they are against?


That's not at all what "the right" wants to do. It is, however, what "the left" tells people in order to scare them away. You're confusing "making something illegal" with "not getting the government involved". There's a full range of things between banning and funding. Most of what you identify as banning (making illegal) is really about not supporting, funding, etc. Um... And the root of that misconception lies in the lefts consistent habit of equating negative actions with failing to perform positive ones.

Quote:
The left wants to limit certain freedoms as well.


I think you're also confusing intent with action. The left doesn't want to limit freedoms, and neither does the right. They just have different definitions of freedom, liberty, and rights, and different ideas about how best to apply them. The right believes that liberty is natural. That you have it in the absence of anyone acting to take it away. Thus, government can't give you freedom, it can only take it away. The left believes that liberty can be given to people, and further believes that failing to give certain freedoms to people is equivalent to infringing their "right" to those things.


This is why the left believes that failing to provide health care for people who don't have it (or can't afford it) infringes their "right" to health care. The right doesn't believe that the right to health care extends beyond preventing people from acting to take health care you already have away from you. One defines protection of liberty as preventing someone from taking something away from you, the other defines it as giving whatever things society decides people should have. They are completely different concepts and if you don't understand that difference, you'll eternally be confused about modern politics and arrive at the sort of incorrect motive assumptions you made earlier.


Quote:
I can agree that re-distribution of wealth infringes on the freedom of the wealthy. There's no denying that. It's not like we want to make everyone have the same amount of money though, we just want things a bit more just. Or I do anyways. I suppose I can't speak for all liberals in this country. The trickle down theory doesn't work, plain and simple. We still have people who are homeless, jobless, and destitute. Do some of them want to be that way? Probably. I don't think most of them do though.


None of which touches on whether someone has a "right" to something. The economic stuff is more about which produces a better economic outcome and isn't really about rights. There are differences of opinion between left and right on that too. And while those differences do emerge from the other differences, they go in slightly different directions.

Quote:
Both sides clearly have different ideas of our inalienable rights too. If everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I think that includes a few things. Everyone has the right to healthcare, a roof over their head, access to education, etc.


Do they? What is a "right"? And when you say that, are you talking about the right to not have those things taken away, or the right to have the government provide them for you? That's the difference between left and right. Once you understand that, a whole lot of things which don't seem to make sense suddenly do.

Quote:
I'm curious, what do you think "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means? Clearly the right doesn't believe that everyone has the right to healthcare, otherwise they wouldn't be in favor of cuts to Medicare, and against universal healthcare like every other industrialized nation has.



Again, it's not about what you have a right to, but how rights should manifest. Does having a right to something mean just that it can't be taken away, or that someone else must provide it for you. The right believes in the former, the left in the latter. As I said earlier, this is a dramatic difference of opinion and pretty much defines the political landscape. Almost all the individual causes and arguments can be defined in this context. If you don't understand that difference you really can't understand those arguments. It's just wordplay.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 2:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#520 Jan 19 2012 at 5:04 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
You can say that the right wants to protect individual's freedoms all you want, but that doesn't make it true.


It doesn't mean that everyone who identifies themselves as a conservative always acts in ways which protect individual freedoms. It does mean that the principles at work *are* intended to do so. If someone acts otherwise, then they are not acting on those principles. It's silly to then argue that "the right" doesn't want to do that. IMO the label of "right" becomes meaningless if you do.

Man, you really don't get that whole "No True Scotsman" thing, do you?
#521 Jan 19 2012 at 5:51 PM Rating: Good
Oh noes, not more word play!

How does DOMA not take away the rights of gay couples to marry? How does gay marriage in any way shape or form cost the taxpayers money. The issue of gay marriage and gays in the military is the most obvious example of how the right wants the government to interfere only when they want them to. Same thing with drug use and prostitution. You are essentially trying to protect people from themselves, and that is not freedom or liberty. People should be free to make their own choices as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Using drugs only hurts yourself. It may cause you to do other things that hurt people, but that's why those actions are illegal. Besides, alcohol causes people to do things that hurt others, but it's legal. Prostitution doesn't hurt anyone either, as long as certain precautions are put in place (using a condom).

You can claim that the right isn't interested in turning our country into a theocracy, but I've seen plenty of evidence that it does. It isn't a scare tactic on the part of the left. We are supposed to have a separation of church and state, but there are plenty of people on the right who have stated that they don't agree with this. Anytime someone speaks out against organized prayer in a public school, the Christian right cries out that they are being persecuted. Anytime a religious organization that receives public funding or tax exemptions gets in trouble for discriminating, they cry out that they are being persecuted. It's ridiculous. If white folks whined and cried about being persecuted by minorities like Christian folks did, there would be a public outcry, and rightly so.

The current health care system in this country doesn't work, plain and simple. Even the right agrees with that. I guess we just have different opinions of what is wrong with it? Personally, I think that health insurance companies are corrupt and evil. They purposefully deny benefits to people who need them (if they can find any loophole) just so they can turn a profit. My dad was a victim of this, he died because his health insurance company would not pay for a treatment because it was experimental. Even though we got pre-approval for it, and the treatment was done (and worked). Then they turned around and said they wouldn't pay for any additional treatments. My mom had to fight them to pay for the first treatment, because they tried to back out of that too.

Taking away a corrupt health care system is not infringing on anyone's rights. We're trying to fix what is broken. Most people who don't have health insurance can't afford it, and yet still make too much money to get Medicaid. There is something seriously wrong with that. I'm lucky that my mother is willing to pay for me to have health insurance while I'm in college. Even with my health insurance, I have to pay out of pocket for eye exams and my contacts, and all my prescriptions because my plan doesn't cover mental health. If it did, it would cost more than the prescriptions do.

I understand the different concepts between natural liberty and society given liberty. I just don't understand how you can call it liberty for people to die of illnesses that could have been treated, had their insurance company been willing to pay for it like they should have done. That doesn't even include the issue of people who can't afford health care.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#522 Jan 19 2012 at 6:19 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
gbaji wrote:
The rights objective is to maximize social liberty as well (same goal as the left interestingly enough).


By telling women what they can do with their bodies and policing the gender of people entering into a loving partnership? By locking up people because they choose to use mind altering substances? By shutting down websites because they share information that some corporations want to have a monopoly on?

Sorry bucko, but until the right jettisons all its social conservatism (at the very least) it is ludicrous to argue that the right is trying to "maximize social liberty"

Smasharoo wrote:
The entire social agenda of the viable US right is to limit personal freedom. I'm not sure how one could argue otherwise.


Yeah, this ^

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 4:20pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#523 Jan 19 2012 at 6:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
Ignoring most of the last hundred posts or so because they make me want to hit my head against a wall. Multiple times.

In gossipy news, ABC let out a teaser a day or two ago that they had a BIG SCOOP from Gingrich's ex-wife that would "effectively end his political career entirely."

Word on the street is that the BIG SCOOP is....

When confronted by his wife about her husband cheating on her with a mistress, Newt demanded his wife Marianne adopt the stance of having an "open marriage" or they'd get divorced.



... how the F*CK is that a big scoop?? We already knew he was cheating on his wife, divorced her, and married his mistress (while lambasting Clinton for his affair at the same time). How does demanding that she accept he had a woman on the side change anything?

I was hoping he had stabbed a hobo or brought a wombat to bed with them. You know, something at least mildly interesting.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 7:39pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#524 Jan 19 2012 at 7:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Majivo wrote:
gbaji wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
You can say that the right wants to protect individual's freedoms all you want, but that doesn't make it true.


It doesn't mean that everyone who identifies themselves as a conservative always acts in ways which protect individual freedoms. It does mean that the principles at work *are* intended to do so. If someone acts otherwise, then they are not acting on those principles. It's silly to then argue that "the right" doesn't want to do that. IMO the label of "right" becomes meaningless if you do.

Man, you really don't get that whole "No True Scotsman" thing, do you?


Yes, I do. And I get that the No True Scotsman fallacy does not preclude that things we label do have actual defining characteristics. While you can argue that "some people on the right" do X, Y, and Z, that does not mean that X, Y, or Z are defining characteristics of being "on the right" politically. If you want to make a claim about what "the right" is about, you need to look for the common factors involved.


And in this context, we were using "right" as a political ideology, not just as a group of people. At some point the No True Scotsman fallacy has to give way to the reality that if no one's allowed to say what something is or isn't, then the label ceases to have meaning.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#525 Jan 19 2012 at 7:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's not at all what "the right" wants to do. It is, however, what "the left" tells people in order to scare them away. You're confusing "making something illegal" with "not getting the government involved". There's a full range of things between banning and funding. Most of what you identify as banning (making illegal) is really about not supporting, funding, etc

GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida , Nov 28, 2007 wrote:
Q: If hypothetically, Roe v. Wade was overturned, and the Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it?

Mitt Romney: Let me say it. I’d be delighted to sign that bill. But that’s not where we are. That’s not where America is today. Where America is, is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific.

You did the same exact thing with McCain. It's sort of cute how self-deluded you are about what the Right -- and your candidates specifically -- want to do.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 7:10pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#526 Jan 19 2012 at 7:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Oh noes, not more word play!

How does DOMA not take away the rights of gay couples to marry?


Because failing to give something to a group isn't the same as taking it away. You get that a marriage license grants you special government benefits, right? This is exactly what I meant by talking about how conservative believe that rights are only violated when something is taken away from someone, while liberals extend that to include things that we fail to give them but we believe they should have.

You do not normally get to live on someone else's social security benefits. You do not normally get to receive their pension. You do not normally get to receive someone else's medical benefits pre-tax. Thus, not having them is the normal state. There is no violation of your rights if you are not granted these benefits. See how by our definition of rights changes our view of this sort of issue?

Quote:
How does gay marriage in any way shape or form cost the taxpayers money.


All marriage benefits cost the taxpayers money. Don't want to get sucked into a gay marriage argument here, but this is about giving benefits to a group of people. Nothing is being taken away.


Quote:
Same thing with drug use and prostitution. You are essentially trying to protect people from themselves, and that is not freedom or liberty.


/shrug You can say that about all laws though. They all limit our freedom. The question is whether or not there's some other liberty aspect competing against it. I (and a lot of conservative btw) happen to agree with you on those two. And there are a lot of liberals who support laws against those things. They're not strictly a right/left issue.

Quote:
People should be free to make their own choices as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.


Absolutely. When did you think I was ever against legalization of these things?


Quote:
You can claim that the right isn't interested in turning our country into a theocracy, but I've seen plenty of evidence that it does.


When? The GOP controlled both houses of congress and the White House for 6 years. Can you show me a single thing done at the federal level during that time which works towards turning our country into a theocracy? This is often claimed by screaming folks on the left, but it's amazing how it never actually happens.

Quote:
It isn't a scare tactic on the part of the left.


Of course it is. What else can it be? Something which has never happened in your lifetime and has never even been attempted in your lifetime, yet you believe that it's the defining and primary goal of one of the two major political forces in the US? How many decades of the GOP not ever trying to create this mythical theocracy have to go by before you conclude that maybe it really is just BS scare tactics?

Quote:
We are supposed to have a separation of church and state, but there are plenty of people on the right who have stated that they don't agree with this. Anytime someone speaks out against organized prayer in a public school, the Christian right cries out that they are being persecuted. Anytime a religious organization that receives public funding or tax exemptions gets in trouble for discriminating, they cry out that they are being persecuted. It's ridiculous.


Wait. So a conservative complaining that a religious institution or religious speech is being discriminated against because they are a religious is equivalent in your mind to the right attempting to transform the nation into a theocracy? Hell of an excluded middle in there.


Quote:
The current health care system in this country doesn't work, plain and simple. Even the right agrees with that. I guess we just have different opinions of what is wrong with it? Personally, I think that health insurance companies are corrupt and evil. They purposefully deny benefits to people who need them (if they can find any loophole) just so they can turn a profit. My dad was a victim of this, he died because his health insurance company would not pay for a treatment because it was experimental. Even though we got pre-approval for it, and the treatment was done (and worked). Then they turned around and said they wouldn't pay for any additional treatments. My mom had to fight them to pay for the first treatment, because they tried to back out of that too.


None of this has anything to do with whether having someone else pay for your health care is a "right".

Quote:
Taking away a corrupt health care system is not infringing on anyone's rights. We're trying to fix what is broken. Most people who don't have health insurance can't afford it, and yet still make too much money to get Medicaid. There is something seriously wrong with that. I'm lucky that my mother is willing to pay for me to have health insurance while I'm in college. Even with my health insurance, I have to pay out of pocket for eye exams and my contacts, and all my prescriptions because my plan doesn't cover mental health. If it did, it would cost more than the prescriptions do.


Again, this has nothing to do with the differences in how left and right define rights.

Quote:
I understand the different concepts between natural liberty and society given liberty. I just don't understand how you can call it liberty for people to die of illnesses that could have been treated, had their insurance company been willing to pay for it like they should have done. That doesn't even include the issue of people who can't afford health care.


Because liberty does not guarantee an outcome. Liberty simply means that no one else will step in and change your outcomes against your will. Even if it's for the better. There's a difference between arguing that we should do something because you think it's a nice thing to do and demanding that we do it because it's a violation of someone's rights if we don't.


I was asked what the difference was between right and left. I gave my answer. It is at it's core about how we perceive issues of rights, not the rights themselves, or the causes themselves. Those are single issues. The problem is that far too many people get caught up in the issues and never step back and look at the bigger pattern. It's not about health care. It's not about gay marriage. It's not about prayer in school. It's about how you believe rights are derived. That is the defining difference between right and left. It has been for nearly a century in the US and longer in other countries.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#527 Jan 19 2012 at 7:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That's not at all what "the right" wants to do. It is, however, what "the left" tells people in order to scare them away. You're confusing "making something illegal" with "not getting the government involved". There's a full range of things between banning and funding. Most of what you identify as banning (making illegal) is really about not supporting, funding, etc

GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida , Nov 28, 2007 wrote:
Q: If hypothetically, Roe v. Wade was overturned, and the Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it?

Mitt Romney: Let me say it. I’d be delighted to sign that bill. But that’s not where we are. That’s not where America is today. Where America is, is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific.

You did the same exact thing with McCain. It's sort of cute how self-deluded you are about what the Right -- and your candidates specifically -- want to do.


I'm sorry. Could you explain to me how that has anything to do with the claim that the rights wants to make everything that violates the bible a crime and turn the nation into a theocracy? Cause that's what I was responding to with that paragraph you quoted.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#528 Jan 19 2012 at 7:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry. Could you explain to me how that has anything to do with the claim that the rights wants to make everything that violates the bible a crime and turn the nation into a theocracy? Cause that's what I was responding to with that paragraph you quoted.

Was that your way of agreeing that Romney supports (and in fact desires) a federal law stripping away the ability to have an abortion on the federal level?

Ok, cool. Thanks! Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#529 Jan 19 2012 at 7:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry. Could you explain to me how that has anything to do with the claim that the rights wants to make everything that violates the bible a crime and turn the nation into a theocracy? Cause that's what I was responding to with that paragraph you quoted.

Was that your way of agreeing that Romney supports (and in fact desires) a federal law stripping away the ability to have an abortion on the federal level?


No. That was my way of saying that any law on abortion doesn't really have anything to do with the claimed plan of the creation of a theocracy.

It's interesting that you assumed it did though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#530 Jan 19 2012 at 7:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not really. I've little interest in debating motive in this case since it can't be proven. But I have little trouble believing that Romney's stance is born from a desire to appease the Religious Right conservatives who preach about this fine "Christian Nation" with its "Biblically founded laws". You're welcome to tell yourself otherwise and I won't even argue with you on it. See how nice I am?

As I said though, I'm happy enough that you admitted to Romney's desire to federally ban abortion. It's a real step forward for you after you argued so hard, against the wealth of contrary evidence, that McCain didn't desire the same thing Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#531 Jan 19 2012 at 8:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Not really. I've little interest in debating motive in this case since it can't be proven.


I think your motive was quite transparent though. You were attempting to make an incredibly tenuous associative argument.

Quote:
But I have little trouble believing that Romney's stance is born from a desire to appease the Religious Right conservatives who preach about this fine "Christian Nation" with its "Biblically founded laws".


What other things they also happen to preach about isn't really relevant though, is it? There a a lot of things I agree with you on Joph, but it would be silly for a third party to say "OMG! How can you agree with a guy who also says...", right? And let's be honest, that was a pretty tepid and middle of the road appeasement (if that's what you want to call it). Um... Yeah. I'm not going to champion this, or work hard for it, and it's certainly not a priority for me, but if by some chance a majority in Congress manages to pass such a law through both houses I'll sign it?

That equates somehow to support for transforming the country into a theocracy? You're kidding, right? Even absent the gap between opposing abortion and imposing theocracy that's pretty darn weak.

Quote:
As I said though, I'm happy enough that you admitted to Romney's desire to federally ban abortion.


If by desire you mean willingness to sign something if everyone else has already said they wanted it. What he said was that he wouldn't veto it. That's not really even remotely close to the same thing.

What do you think Obama's answer would have been if he'd been asked the same question? Clinton? Gore? Kerry? Clinton? Any major Dem contender for president for the last 30 years?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#532 Jan 19 2012 at 8:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If by desire you mean willingness to sign something if everyone else has already said they wanted it. What he said was that he wouldn't veto it. That's not really even remotely close to the same thing.

Romney wrote:
Let me say it. I’d be delighted to sign that bill.


No, sorry, he didn't just say "I wouldn't veto it". He'd be "delighted". Did you need me to link to dictionary.com or something because you seem to be lost and confused about what "delighted" means.

You're such a sad little tool. I bet the GOP loves puppets like you Smiley: laugh

Quote:
What do you think Obama's answer would have been if he'd been asked the same question? Clinton? Gore? Kerry? Clinton? Any major Dem contender for president for the last 30 years?

Was this a serious question or are you just flailing this wildly? Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#533 Jan 19 2012 at 8:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If by desire you mean willingness to sign something if everyone else has already said they wanted it. What he said was that he wouldn't veto it. That's not really even remotely close to the same thing.

Romney wrote:
Let me say it. I’d be delighted to sign that bill.


No, sorry, he didn't just say "I wouldn't veto it". He'd be "delighted".


If congress had already passed the bill and if we had that kind of consensus in the country. He's basically saying that if there was some kind of huge opinion shift in the country and suddenly magically most people wanted a ban and congress passed a bill, he'd be happy to sign it.

Quote:
Quote:
What do you think Obama's answer would have been if he'd been asked the same question? Clinton? Gore? Kerry? Clinton? Any major Dem contender for president for the last 30 years?

Was this a serious question or are you just flailing this wildly? Smiley: laugh


Yes. Serious question. Do you honestly believe that if any of those candidates had been proposed the same exact hypothetical that they'd have said they'd oppose the will of the majority and veto the bill? I don't think that Romney (or McCain's) answers are that far out of the mainstream, yet you're presenting this like it's some kind of appeasement to a radical element. And some kind of uniquely conservative thing.


It's not uniquely conservative, and at the risk of pulling this back on topic, it's certainly not definitively conservative. The hypothetical itself is the result of liberal assumptions about what conservative want or believe. Conservatives realize that this would never happen unless liberals pushed the bill (and/or there was said massive opinion shift in the country demanding it). Why? Because the overriding factor here is that conservatives don't believe in doing such things at the federal level in the first place. We would not push for such a ban. Liberals who decided to oppose abortion instead of support it would (and the very small percentage of conservatives who do place their opposition of abortion ahead of their small government principles).


Any president finding himself in that position would sign that bill. Because it would mean that the abortion question was over. It would mean that abortion, just like slavery, was now considered by the population to be a gross violation of human rights. And at that point, the question of whether you're violating someone's choice becomes somewhat moot.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 6:50pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#534 Jan 19 2012 at 8:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If congress had already passed the bill and if we had that kind of consensus in the country. He's basically saying that if there was some kind of huge opinion shift in the country and suddenly magically most people wanted a ban and congress passed a bill, he'd be happy to sign it.

Not "happy". Delighted. He thinks it would be terrific.

You can't even be fooling yourself with your attempts here. Why are you so terrified to admit that Romney wants to federally ban abortion?

Quote:
Yes. Serious question. Do you honestly believe that if any of those candidates had been proposed the same exact hypothetical that they'd have said they'd oppose the will of the majority and veto the bill?

Absolutely. But rather than you say I'm wrong or whatever, why don't you just show me examples of them saying they'd work to ban abortion on whatever level? Secretary Clinton said the government shouldn't be involved at all in a woman's right to choose. President Obama, in his legislative career, voted against several bills that would have restricted abortion. Fortunately, I don't have to work against direct quotes reflecting their enthusiasm for the idea and make pathetic attempts at saying "No, uh, he just meant that, you know, he wouldn't stop it."

Quote:
the risk of pulling this back on topic

The actual topic is the GOP nomination race. And one (well, probably all) of the current contenders would love to strip away any right to abortion on a federal level and throw down a blanket ban. Why you need to pretend this isn't true is a real mystery since this isn't even a fringe view of your party.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 8:59pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#535 Jan 19 2012 at 8:58 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
He can't honestly believe what he's writing, right? Good lord. Smiley: facepalm
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#536 Jan 19 2012 at 9:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eske Esquire wrote:
He can't honestly believe what he's writing, right? Good lord. Smiley: facepalm

"Don't retreat, reload!"

There's no limits to the depths of his self-delusion.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#537 Jan 19 2012 at 9:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If congress had already passed the bill and if we had that kind of consensus in the country. He's basically saying that if there was some kind of huge opinion shift in the country and suddenly magically most people wanted a ban and congress passed a bill, he'd be happy to sign it.

Not "happy". Delighted.


You're kidding, right?

Quote:
Quote:
Yes. Serious question. Do you honestly believe that if any of those candidates had been proposed the same exact hypothetical that they'd have said they'd oppose the will of the majority and veto the bill?

Absolutely.


You're fooling yourself Joph. They'd give the same answer. They might not use the word "delighted", but they'd say that they'd sign the bill. Which, I suspect, is why no one ever asks them that question.


Quote:
But rather than you say I'm wrong or whatever, why don't you just show me examples of them saying they'd work to ban abortion on whatever level?


Give me an example of Romney saying this first, but replace "whatever" with "federal" please. Stick to the case at hand.


Quote:
Secretary Clinton said the government shouldn't be involved at all in a woman's right to choose.


Uh huh. And Romney (and pretty much every GOP candidate during our lifetimes) have argued that the issue of abortion should not be dealt with at the federal level. Funny how this doesn't dissuade you from assuming they would work for a federal ban on abortion anyway.

I'll also point out this is a non-answer anyway. What does that mean? The (federal) government is already involved in a womans "right to choose". So she opposes Roe v. Wade? And state governments all have laws limiting abortion on the books right now. That's "involvement", right?

Quote:
President Obama, in his legislative career, voted against several bills that would have restricted abortion.


Yup. Well aware of this. But when asked the question about he personally feel about abortion when running for president, he tip toed around it pretty carefully. Who do you suppose he was "appeasing"?

Quote:
The actual topic is the GOP nomination race. And one (well, probably all) of the current contenders would love to strip away any right to abortion on a federal level and throw down a blanket ban. Why you need to pretend this isn't true is a real mystery since this isn't even a fringe view of your party.


None of them do Joph. You're getting caught up in a leading question. He's saying that if there was a consensus switch in the country on the issue of abortion, and if congress came to him with a bill banning abortion (with all the prerequisites that would require), he would be delighted to sign it. Not because he'd be able to impose his draconian views on abortion on an unwilling public (as you seem to want to suggest), because it would mean that the public had overwhelmingly rejected the notion of abortion as a practice.


That's the only case in which conservatives would ever pass such a thing Joph. Don't you get that?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#538 Jan 19 2012 at 9:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You're kidding, right?

No. Of course not. That was the exact word he used. Why would I be "kidding" to use his actual language while you sit there and beg me to accept the language you wish he used?

Quote:
You're fooling yourself Joph.

Coming from the guy who refuses to admit that Romney would be delighted and think it would be terrific to sign a bill banning all abortion on the federal level, I'm going to not worry too much about your opinion there Smiley: laugh

I see you couldn't find anything remotely close to Romney's remarks for any Democratic candidate. That's no surprise to me. I guess it might have been for you since you've convinced yourself that anyone would answer with Romney's answer.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#539 Jan 19 2012 at 9:30 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
gbaji wrote:
Give me an example of Romney saying this first, but replace "whatever" with "federal" please. Stick to the case at hand.
Just for clarification, are you looking for proof of Romney saying this?
Mitt Romney wrote:
Let me say it. I’d be delighted to sign that bill. But that’s not where we are. That’s not where America is today. Where America is, is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific.
Because, you know ... he did. I'd say word for word, but there was a "Let me say it" thrown in there as well.

I'll admit I didn't read the zam quote. I was busy watching the 2007 FL GOP Debate. My mistake. Guilliani said he wouldn't sign it, just for comparison's sake.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 10:37pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#540 Jan 19 2012 at 9:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Tell ya what Joph. Get back to me when the GOP actually does attempt to pass a federal abortion ban. Then we can talk. Pointing to a hypothetical question asked by a reporter of a GOP candidate which assumed that congress *did* pass such a ban does not constitute evidence that the GOP *wants* to pass such a ban.


And that's still a whole step or two away from the claim that the GOP is somehow working toward creating a theocracy where the law of the bible becomes the law of the land (whatever the hell that means).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#541 Jan 19 2012 at 9:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Give me an example of Romney saying this first, but replace "whatever" with "federal" please. Stick to the case at hand.
Just for clarification, are you looking for proof of Romney saying this?


Yes. Romney saying "I will fight to get a federal ban on abortion passed into law".


Quote:
Mitt Romney wrote:
Let me say it. I’d be delighted to sign that bill. But that’s not where we are. That’s not where America is today. Where America is, is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific.
Because, you know ... he did. I'd say word for word, but there was a "Let me say it" thrown in there as well.


Sigh... That's not fighting for a federal ban on abortion. The piece you are missing is that conservatives have no intention to pass such a law. The reporter asked him what he'd do if it was passed already, not whether he'd work to get congress to pass such a thing in the first place.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#542 Jan 19 2012 at 9:51 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
gbaji wrote:
Yes. Romney saying "I will fight to get a federal ban on abortion passed into law".
I guess I should have used a colon instead of question mark. It wouldn't be entirely grammatically correct, but knowing your inability to follow points makes it entirely my fault you got confused. No, sweety, I was asking if you were looking for actual proof of the quote that followed.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#543 Jan 19 2012 at 9:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Tell ya what Joph. Get back to me when the GOP actually does attempt to pass a federal abortion ban.

Why? When they've made it crystal clear that this is their end game, why not discuss it now? Especially if you're against such a ban why would you wait for it to come to pass before talking about it?

I mean, aside from you being terrified to admit the obvious truth. But I suppose this means you've run out of ways to deny that Romney would be delighted and think it terrific to sign a bill banning all abortion on the federal level.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#544 Jan 19 2012 at 9:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yes. Romney saying "I will fight to get a federal ban on abortion passed into law".
I guess I should have used a colon instead of question mark. It wouldn't be entirely grammatically correct, but knowing your inability to follow points makes it entirely my fault you got confused. No, sweety, I was asking if you were looking for actual proof of the quote that followed.


Then why did you quote my request? I was asking for a quote of Romney saying he would fight to pass a federal ban on abortion. You quoted that and asked if I was actually asking for proof he'd said that. Then you followed with the same quote Joph tossed in earlier.


That sure looked to me like you thought that the quote from Romney fulfilled the request I was making. If not, then what the hell were you saying?

Er: To be more clear. Why the hell would I be asking for a quote of Romney saying what Joph had already quoted? I was asking for a quote of Romney saying what *I* was responding to when I made the request.


Edited, Jan 19th 2012 7:55pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#545 Jan 19 2012 at 9:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
It's times like this I wish I had premium so I could post facepalm.jpg

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 7:55pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#546 Jan 19 2012 at 9:57 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
gbaji wrote:
Then why did you quote my request?
Because apparently I'm more tired than I thought and gave more credit in your ability to follow points. I already apologized for making that mistake. We have to lead you from 1 to 2 and so on before you can finish a puzzle.
gbaji wrote:
If not, then what the hell were you saying?
Holy crap, man. It's simple: Were you looking for evidence of the quote Joph posted? Or are you waiting until someone tells you the answer? I can only lead you to the points. I'm not a politician, I can't tell you what to parrot.
gbaji wrote:
Why the hell would I be asking for a quote of Romney saying what Joph had already quoted?
I barely understand why you do anything. Seems like on par with any other ridiculous request you've made.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 10:59pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#547 Jan 19 2012 at 10:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
For more clarification, he's the whole bit you responded to:

gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
But rather than you say I'm wrong or whatever, why don't you just show me examples of them saying they'd work to ban abortion on whatever level?


Give me an example of Romney saying this first, but replace "whatever" with "federal" please. Stick to the case at hand.


I'm asking for someone showing that Romney did this. Seems fair, right? If that's the criteria for determining where someone stands of a federal ban for abortion, then we should apply it to both sides.

Can you find such a quote? Can anyone? If not, then how can one even argue that the GOP is trying to pass such a thing? And even past that, how does one argue that the GOP is trying to pass laws to "make this country into a theocracy"? I was told that there were numerous examples of this. A bait question about what a presidential candidate would do if such a law were already passed isn't the same thing (and also has nothing to do with creating a theocracy either).


I'm still waiting. Isn't it odd that so many liberals just assume that primary among the GOPs goals is "creating a theocratic state", yet they can't actually find examples of the GOP doing this anywhere. Hence why I called that a scare tactic. Because it is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#548 Jan 19 2012 at 10:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If not, then what the hell were you saying?
Holy crap, man. It's simple: Were you looking for evidence of the quote Joph posted?


No. I wasn't. What part of that confuses you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#549 Jan 19 2012 at 10:09 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
gbaji wrote:
What part of that confuses you?
It took you three posts to figure out what would be a simple question for a dog to answer, but I'm the one that was confused. Smiley: laugh Yeah, okay. And for the record, I asked my dog the same question, and he shook his head. Now, I'm not saying he understood what I said, or that you're dumber than a dog or anything. Just posting the chain of events.

So anyway, and I know there's no quote or lines or anything but this isn't directed at you gbaji (I remembered you can't follow unless led by the hand, don't worry!) so you can go back to waiting on someone to tell you what your opinion is. The 2007 GOP debate was a lot more interesting than the current ones. Probably more to do with my obvious bias in that I always like Guiliani, but still. This batch of debates is as flat and boring as the 2004 ones were.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 11:12pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#550 Jan 19 2012 at 11:04 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:

Because failing to give something to a group isn't the same as taking it away. You get that a marriage license grants you special government benefits, right? This is exactly what I meant by talking about how conservative believe that rights are only violated when something is taken away from someone, while liberals extend that to include things that we fail to give them but we believe they should have.

You do not normally get to live on someone else's social security benefits. You do not normally get to receive their pension. You do not normally get to receive someone else's medical benefits pre-tax. Thus, not having them is the normal state. There is no violation of your rights if you are not granted these benefits. See how by our definition of rights changes our view of this sort of issue?


Boy you sure love to be patronizing don't you? Do you really think the gays would care if they could get married if there wasn't certain benefits that marriage gave? If there weren't benefits to getting married over getting a civil union, they wouldn't really care about the difference. And yes, I do know that marriage gives special government benefits.

So following your logic, there was no need to give people of different colors of skin the right to marry, because that was giving them rights they wouldn't have had otherwise? But yet, when straight people get married, they get all these benefits that they wouldn't have had before. Any person who married another person of the opposite sex would get those benefits. By telling people they can't have those benefits if they marry someone of the same sex, you ARE taking those benefits away from them. Not only is that wrong (even by your book) it's discrimination.

Something I suspect we might agree on, I think the state sponsored marriage should be done away with completely. The government should have absolutely no say whatsoever in who can get married and who can't. If people want to get married via religious institution, fine. If people want to be legally tied to one another, so they can share health insurance, pensions, etc. they should get a civil union. Do away with the tax credits for being married, that's stupid. Getting tax credits for having kids I can understand since that actually costs money. Getting married doesn't cost anymore than the cost of the marriage license, which in most states is under $100 isn't it? There certainly aren't any sustained expense of being married, so I don't get why married people get a tax credit. To encourage people to get married I'm guessing, but why does the government care if people get married? So that they have kids so that the cycle of life continues? People already get a tax credit for having kids, and one doesn't need to get married to procreate.

Quote:
Quote:
You can claim that the right isn't interested in turning our country into a theocracy, but I've seen plenty of evidence that it does.


When? The GOP controlled both houses of congress and the White House for 6 years. Can you show me a single thing done at the federal level during that time which works towards turning our country into a theocracy? This is often claimed by screaming folks on the left, but it's amazing how it never actually happens.


Okay, that probably is a bit of a hyperbole on my part. But can you at least understand why those of us who aren't Christian might feel that way? Perhaps for you the reason to oppose gay marriage is because it would cost the tax payers more money, but that isn't ever the argument we hear against it. It's always "The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman!" or some variant of that.

Conservatives in several different states have tried to get person-hood amendments passed, so that legally, an embryo is a person. Why do they want to do this? Because they believe that life begins at conception because that's what it says in the bible. That is a great example of how some conservatives are trying to pass laws that are based on theology.

Quote:
Quote:
Taking away a corrupt health care system is not infringing on anyone's rights. We're trying to fix what is broken. Most people who don't have health insurance can't afford it, and yet still make too much money to get Medicaid. There is something seriously wrong with that. I'm lucky that my mother is willing to pay for me to have health insurance while I'm in college. Even with my health insurance, I have to pay out of pocket for eye exams and my contacts, and all my prescriptions because my plan doesn't cover mental health. If it did, it would cost more than the prescriptions do.


Again, this has nothing to do with the differences in how left and right define rights.


Yes it does. You say that the right only views taking away people's rights as a problem, where as the left views not giving people rights in the first place as a problem. I specifically said that taking away a corrupt health care system is not infringing on anyone's rights. Besides complaining that they don't want to pay for other people's health problems, one of the biggest complaints I hear from the right against having a universal health care system, is that it would take away their choice. I don't see how that's any different than what health insurance companies do. They have a list of preferred providers, and if you want to have your medical bills paid for, you have to go to those doctors. How is that a choice? I suppose you could switch to a different health insurance company, but what if you have diabetes? What if you're pregnant? What if you have a history of ear infections? Those are all pre-existing conditions, and any new health insurance company you go to will not pay for any care related to those conditions. So once people pick a health insurance company, they're pretty much stuck with it unless they are healthy. Well, at least until 2014 when they're no longer allowed to do that, thanks to the health care reform that was passed.

Quote:
Quote:
I understand the different concepts between natural liberty and society given liberty. I just don't understand how you can call it liberty for people to die of illnesses that could have been treated, had their insurance company been willing to pay for it like they should have done. That doesn't even include the issue of people who can't afford health care.


Because liberty does not guarantee an outcome. Liberty simply means that no one else will step in and change your outcomes against your will. Even if it's for the better. There's a difference between arguing that we should do something because you think it's a nice thing to do and demanding that we do it because it's a violation of someone's rights if we don't.


So what you are saying, is that it's okay for a health insurance company to deny paying for treatment for a life-threatening condition, even though they have paid their premiums every month, because if they hadn't had the insurance in the first place they wouldn't have been able to afford it anyways, and they still would have died? That makes no logical sense whatsoever. If that's not what you were trying to say, please elaborate.

When you pay your premiums for health insurance, you are doing so under the belief that if you get sick, your insurance company will pay for you to get better. If you get sick, and the insurance company decides not to pay for you to get better, because it would cost them too much money, that IS stepping in and changing the outcome against your will. The insurance company paying for you to get better is not a "nice thing to do," it is what they owe their customers for them paying their premium. To not pay for their clients to get better, is essentially theft. They paid for a service they did not get.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 10:05pm by PigtailsOfDoom
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#551 Jan 20 2012 at 5:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,230 posts
Olorinus wrote:
It's times like this I wish I had premium so I could post facepalm.jpg

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 7:55pm by Olorinus

Smiley: facepalm

You don't need premium anymore.

Try to keep up.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 56 All times are in CDT
Aethien, feelz, Kuwoobie, Anonymous Guests (53)