Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

The Up and Down (left or right?) of Morality.Follow

#1 Aug 19 2013 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,827 posts
I read most a bit of the groping thread. It wasn't as tactile as i would have liked.

The term 'moral' highground came up more than once though. Are the bounds of morality different for democrats and republicans?

What are your moral highs and moral lows?

____________________________
LOOK here.
#2 Aug 19 2013 at 8:31 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
Elinda wrote:
Are the bounds of morality different for democrats and republicans?
To a democrat, anything a republican does is morally detestable. To a republican, anything a democrat does is morally detestable.

As for myself, my and mine's safety and well being comes first so there isn't really much I wouldn't do to assure it. "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six" comes to mind.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Aug 19 2013 at 8:52 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,827 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Are the bounds of morality different for democrats and republicans?
To a democrat, anything a republican does is morally detestable. To a republican, anything a democrat does is morally detestable.

Really? Smiley: clown

gbaji's claim was that democrats are less likely to throw someone out of office for moral indiscretions - whether it be texting hard-on pics or having an affair or ...whatever.

First off, I understand it's a gbaji claim, and therefor not necessarily of this reality. Still, could it be that 'morality' is defined slightly differently for the two parties?

In fact it probably is. It must be part of what makes the two party platforms diverge.

How much does religion play into it?
____________________________
LOOK here.
#4 Aug 19 2013 at 9:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
Are the bounds of morality different for democrats and republicans?

I get the impression that it's less "different boundaries" and more how the ideologies project those boundaries into public policy and political debate. I may personally not want a partner to have an abortion but I recognize that the option should be available for those who make that decision. I may feel infidelity is wrong, but I don't see it, in of itself, as an important facet in governing. I think most people recognize that murder is wrong, but differ on an appropriate punishment (capital vs non-capital).

Acknowledging that there are branches of the Republican party with a "who cares?" attitude, the party as a whole has allied itself with factions who care very much about projecting their boundaries into public policy and making their personal bounds into law. There's much less of that in the Democratic party.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Aug 19 2013 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
5,493 posts
For some people it is "morally detestable" to have premarital sex. For these same people, it is perfectly "ok" to completely screw the rest of humanity to make a dollar. They're not Republicans or Democrats, they're @#%^ing retards.

(They're mostly Republicans. Mostly.)
____________________________
my Tumblr
#6 Aug 19 2013 at 11:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,707 posts
For me it comes down to integrity and basic values. A politician who lies about an affair or criminal activity is going to lie about other things. No politician is going to vote or behave exactly how I want or would act in a given scenario. But I try to support the ones who I feel will act according to my particular set of values and the topic I believe in, in order of importance to me.

Politicians, to be effective, have to make compromises. I recognize that in order to get a bill passed that I believe in, a politician may have to vote contrary to my beliefs on a different bill, and it's my responsability to pick a candidate that I believe will act in my best interests as I see them more often than not, and will act more effectivly than those running against that candidate.

For me, Infrastructure, economics, military / intel, science and space funding, education are the most important issues in that order, followed by everything else. I find abortion distasteful, and consider it a form of murder, but I would also consider supporting a candidate that was pro abortion if they were also very strongly supportive of transportation infrastructure building for example. I'd also have quite a bit of trouble supporting a candidate who shares my beliefs and values, but consistantly votes to implement policies that cannibalize the middle class economics in favor of providing services for an increasing lower class population.

I would actually have more respect for a candidate confronted with a sex scandal who responded with "Yup, I did it, it was great, and by the way, you mom says hi" than one who denied everything, swept it under the carpet and is later proven to be a liar. Richard nixon lied under oath and did the right thing by resigning. Bill Clinton lied under oath and should have been tossed out of office.

I dunno. it's a murky situational area. I don't think one party or the other tends to have more scandals overall, though I do think that the more moderate conservitive republicans (not the crazy ones) are quicker to implement sanctions than some of the democrats tend to be, but that could just be observational bias.

Either way I still think Nancy Pelosi is a batsh*t insane menace to the population and Harry Ried is a jerk.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#7 Aug 19 2013 at 4:05 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,805 posts
Jophiel wrote:
. I may personally not want a partner to have an abortion but I recognize that the option should be available for those who make that decision. I may feel infidelity is wrong, but I don't see it, in of itself, as an important facet in governing. I think most people recognize that murder is wrong, but differ on an appropriate punishment (capital vs non-capital).


Exactly this. The main difference between the two parties is that Democrats are less likely to push for laws that support their moral beliefs. That doesn't say that Democrats do not have them. I think the confusion comes when you see people in the Democratic party who push for socially "immoral" behaviors. Those beliefs (in any party) don't necessarily represent the majority. I would argue that most people do not support the action of abortion, even the people who have had them, but morally agreeing with the action is different from supporting a law.

Republicans have a lot going for their party, because I believe the US still want to live in a "moral" nation; but they lose a lot of people due to bigotry. There are ways to address these issues without making people feel less of a person. Instead of outright making it more difficult for women to have abortions, address the issues that place women in those scenarios to reduce abortions.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#8 Aug 19 2013 at 4:44 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,024 posts
Almalieque wrote:
address the issues that place women in those scenarios to reduce abortions.


They tried, but calling them sluts and whores didn't go over too well.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#9 Aug 19 2013 at 6:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
For me, it's more about the difference between what is claimed publicly, and what ends out actually happening when political reality comes into play. At the end of the day, our society does hold certain moral values in high regard. We care about infidelity. We care about theft. We care about bribery. We care about abuse of power. We care about abortion. And we do expect our leaders to share those same positions on those issues. And while all politicians tend to gin up their positions to the audience at hand, it does seem as though Democrats do this to a far greater degree than Republicans, and that their supporters seem far more willing to look the other way when it happens.

While this is obviously a broad brush argument, the general trend does seem to follow this pattern. It's almost like both parties know that these moral positions are important to the voters, but Democrats view them as an obstacle to be overcome, while Republicans see them as virtues to strive to meet. And this attitude applies to supporters on the left and right as well. Both sides are upset when their respective leaders fail to meet those moral expectations, but it really seems like folks on the left care more about such failures to the degree that it may affect their party's power, while those on the right actually care that their leaders failed.

It's related to something I've spoken about in the past. To me, one of the big differences in how liberals and conservatives view politics, is that liberals are ends driven, while conservatives are means driven. Liberals care about the end goal/outcome. Everything along the way is an obstacle to those ends. So a Democrat politician getting embroiled in a scandal is a problem for liberals because it's a scandal which will make it difficult to move towards some important political end, not because of what he did. A Republican doing the same thing is a problem for conservatives because of what he did, period. We believe that how you accomplish things is as important (if not more so) than what you accomplish.

I suppose it's also tied into the idea that conservatives are innately distrustful of government. It's why we don't want it to have too much power, even when our guys are wielding it. We believe that if someone can't be trusted in their personal lives and actions, they probably can't be trusted in their professional/political lives either. Liberals seem to believe (foolishly IMO) that it's ok for a politician to lie, cheat, steal, etc as long as they're doing so "for the cause" so to speak. I think that the problem with that is that if he's willing to lie to the other guys to get what he wants, why do you assume he's not lying to you as well?

It does somewhat come down the setting higher expectations of our leaders than we place on ourselves. We know that not every leader will be perfect, but if we at least set the bar high then we can judge each failure on its own merits and decide what to do about it. But if we just abandon the expectation entirely, that bar will just keep getting lower and lower, and we'll just get more and more scandals and abuses, and horrible leaders. No one's perfect, but it doesn't hurt to at least hold our leaders to some kind of standards.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#10 Aug 19 2013 at 8:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,703 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
economics


which flavor?
____________________________
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."
#11 Aug 19 2013 at 8:23 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,703 posts
Quote:
And while all politicians tend to gin up their positions to the audience at hand, it does seem as though Democrats do this to a far greater degree than Republicans, and that their supporters seem far more willing to look the other way when it happens.


This is fairly laughably false.
____________________________
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."
#12 Aug 19 2013 at 8:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
Avatar
****
4,284 posts
Quote:
The Up and Down (left or right?) of Morality.


Its Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A B A

After this you can START.
____________________________
Hi
#13 Aug 19 2013 at 9:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts

While this is obviously a broad brush argument, the general trend does seem to follow this pattern


Well thank goodness we qualified the broad brush argument so effectively. Let me try this technique out a little:

While this is obviously a blatant insult, you are a pig fucker.

No, still makes too much sense on it's face. More tautological, Smash, more tautological!


While your view is nothing new, and is based on party line bullshit, only partisan hacks who ignore the facts would even bother to mention it.

THERE we go. Yeah, that's right, dropped the rhyming quatrain. Veritas, bitches.
____________________________
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.

#14 Aug 19 2013 at 9:30 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,805 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
address the issues that place women in those scenarios to reduce abortions.


They tried, but calling them sluts and whores didn't go over too well.


Good point..
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#15 Aug 20 2013 at 1:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,707 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
economics


which flavor?


Kind of a mix I suppose. I think John Maynard Keynes is an @#%^, but he's not entirely wrong. Government investment to prime a sluggish economy, particularily if that investment is in infrastructure (transportation to move freight, port improvements, electrical grid improvements, data network improvements, etc) that provide a long term tangibal benifit economically or militarily or both are useful and justified in my oppinion. Bailing out a lying sack of crap stock company that has been lying to their investors for decades and whose failure would make room for new, more efficient less corrupt by dint of not having had time to figure otu all the corruption methods, isn't. I believe that rich people are more likely to own and operate large companies that can hire middle class workforces, but I believe self interest will always make them choose profit over job creation unless there is a compelling government backed reason for them to favor job creation. I think taxes are too low across the board, but what tax money is collected is not allocated appropriatly. For example If spending 3 billion on a transportation fix will dramatically improve the economy of a State now, vs. spending 3 billion on education that might improve education several years from now, do the transportation fix first and use the additional tax revenue to fix the education issue. Governments should also subsidize and maintain critical military production infrastructure even when it is an economic drain, but at the same time we need to call out certain military contractors when they are screwing us over. Socialism and communism don't work, and a bunch of of social program spending is crap that should be cut and used to upgrade infrastructure or build our space elevator. We spend billions paying farmers not to produce anything, while at the same time our hard sciences funding is being cut to the bone. I guess bottom line, if a change makes our economy grow faster without enslaving people or stepping on the backs of others to the point where they leave for greener pastures, it's probably good. If it adds crap social programs that takes my money to pay for someone else to get unnecessary foot fungus treatments, or huge increases in long term debt with no real measurable reward I have a problem with it. /shrug.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#16 Aug 20 2013 at 5:08 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts

Kind of a mix I suppose. I think John Maynard Keynes is an @#%^, but he's not entirely wrong. Government investment to prime a sluggish economy, particularily if that investment is in infrastructure (transportation to move freight, port improvements, electrical grid improvements, data network improvements, etc) that provide a long term tangibal benifit economically or militarily or both are useful and justified in my oppinion. Bailing out a lying sack of crap stock company that has been lying to their investors for decades and whose failure would make room for new, more efficient less corrupt by dint of not having had time to figure otu all the corruption methods, isn't. I believe that rich people are more likely to own and operate large companies that can hire middle class workforces, but I believe self interest will always make them choose profit over job creation unless there is a compelling government backed reason for them to favor job creation. I think taxes are too low across the board, but what tax money is collected is not allocated appropriatly. For example If spending 3 billion on a transportation fix will dramatically improve the economy of a State now, vs. spending 3 billion on education that might improve education several years from now, do the transportation fix first and use the additional tax revenue to fix the education issue. Governments should also subsidize and maintain critical military production infrastructure even when it is an economic drain, but at the same time we need to call out certain military contractors when they are screwing us over. Socialism and communism don't work, and a bunch of of social program spending is crap that should be cut and used to upgrade infrastructure or build our space elevator. We spend billions paying farmers not to produce anything, while at the same time our hard sciences funding is being cut to the bone. I guess bottom line, if a change makes our economy grow faster without enslaving people or stepping on the backs of others to the point where they leave for greener pastures, it's probably good. If it adds crap social programs that takes my money to pay for someone else to get unnecessary foot fungus treatments, or huge increases in long term debt with no real measurable reward I have a problem with it. /shrug..


Holy sh*t, it's like looking right into the mind of an insomniac 10th grader who drank coffee for the first time. Experimenting with meth? Paragraphs, dude.
____________________________
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.

#17 Aug 20 2013 at 7:10 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
10,851 posts
fronglo wrote:
Quote:
The Up and Down (left or right?) of Morality.


Its Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A B A

After this you can START.


SELECT then START if you're debating with another person.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#18 Aug 20 2013 at 7:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
10,851 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Kind of a mix I suppose. I think John Maynard Keynes is an @#%^, but he's not entirely wrong. Government investment to prime a sluggish economy, particularily if that investment is in infrastructure (transportation to move freight, port improvements, electrical grid improvements, data network improvements, etc) that provide a long term tangibal benifit economically or militarily or both are useful and justified in my oppinion. Bailing out a lying sack of crap stock company that has been lying to their investors for decades and whose failure would make room for new, more efficient less corrupt by dint of not having had time to figure otu all the corruption methods, isn't. I believe that rich people are more likely to own and operate large companies that can hire middle class workforces, but I believe self interest will always make them choose profit over job creation unless there is a compelling government backed reason for them to favor job creation. I think taxes are too low across the board, but what tax money is collected is not allocated appropriatly. For example If spending 3 billion on a transportation fix will dramatically improve the economy of a State now, vs. spending 3 billion on education that might improve education several years from now, do the transportation fix first and use the additional tax revenue to fix the education issue. Governments should also subsidize and maintain critical military production infrastructure even when it is an economic drain, but at the same time we need to call out certain military contractors when they are screwing us over. Socialism and communism don't work, and a bunch of of social program spending is crap that should be cut and used to upgrade infrastructure or build our space elevator. We spend billions paying farmers not to produce anything, while at the same time our hard sciences funding is being cut to the bone. I guess bottom line, if a change makes our economy grow faster without enslaving people or stepping on the backs of others to the point where they leave for greener pastures, it's probably good. If it adds crap social programs that takes my money to pay for someone else to get unnecessary foot fungus treatments, or huge increases in long term debt with no real measurable reward I have a problem with it. /shrug..


Holy sh*t, it's like looking right into the mind of an insomniac 10th grader who drank coffee for the first time. Experimenting with meth? Paragraphs, dude.


Your inability to use the Quote feature and Bold-ing everything you do quote isn't making it any better.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#19 Aug 20 2013 at 7:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Paying farmers not to produce isn't really a social program so much as it's an economic one. It's a moderating influence to help keep the grain market from crashing in response to a glut or making US grain unreasonably expensive on the world market in low yield seasons.

Whether or not it's good policy or if it's still required now that much of the farming is done by large agribusiness corporations is another question.

Out of curiosity (directed at Kao), did you get into your current profession due to an interest in transportation/infrastructure or is your interest in it mainly a result of your job?

Edited, Aug 20th 2013 8:31am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Aug 20 2013 at 7:30 AM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
fronglo wrote:
Quote:
The Up and Down (left or right?) of Morality.
Its Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A B A

After this you can START.
SELECT then START if you're debating with another person.
Save the quarter and just throw the machine out the window if that's the game you're playing.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#21 Aug 20 2013 at 8:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,707 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Out of curiosity (directed at Kao), did you get into your current profession due to an interest in transportation/infrastructure or is your interest in it mainly a result of your job?

I come from a long line of highway engineers, going back about 4 generations. I actually wanted to be an aerospace engineer, but with the whole 9/11 thing and no one hiring aerospace engineers, that kind of didn't work out, so I got a degree in security and intel studies instead. The transportation working side was kind of an accident, since the opportunity was there, as I worked in transportation all through college between classes, specifically on the IT side. That's where the background knowledge comes from. The interest portion of it stems mainly from the economy of the state I live in, which is driven 90% by import / export and shipping Prior to 2011, over half of all incoming imported goods and services to the west coast arrived via Washington, which is huge considering California and Oregon in the mix. Since then, that percentage has decreased, but not because California and Oregon are getting a much larger share, but because companies won't deal with the bottlenecks all up and down the I-5 corridor and the rail system and the fact that none of the west coast major ports are deep enough to support post-Panamax sized cargo ships yet, and are finding it cheaper to simply ship or fly everything to the east coast or up the Mississippi. the western half of Washington state in particular is transportation focused. The other major economic factions that drive the economy here deal with export of apples, grain, timber, certain IT concerns in Seattle, and power export from the hydroelectric and nuclear plants. I also have an interest in seismic aspects due mainly to Mt. Saint Helens, a couple well timed earthquakes in California while visiting (Being on a runway in a landing plane during a magnitude 6 earthquake is fun!) , and an unhealthy obsession with geology, and specifically how the infrastructure of Washington stands up seismically knowing that I-5 sits on a major fault line expected to produce a massive earthquake sometime in the next 100 years. So a little of both I guess.

Paragraphs? who needs em!
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#22 Aug 20 2013 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,245 posts
The way I tend to see it, being an outsider of course (so take it with a large grain of salt.)

Democrats protect people's freedoms and try to keep people well rounded through health, education and wealth equalization. The fix the problem approach. Social engineering, if people don't feel the need to do bad things they won't.

Republicans try to keep people well rounded through direct control of their moral decisions. This is actually the removal of freedom. It's the hit it harder approach. Police state with the illusion of freedom through isolation (people tend to associate "Police state" with Democrats due to positions on gun legislation, but I feel it's the opposite.)

The US needs something in the middle. If you could make that happen before our Conservative party shifts any more towards your Republican overlord ideology that'd be great thanks!
#23 Aug 20 2013 at 9:53 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,827 posts
Almalieque wrote:

Republicans have a lot going for their party, because I believe the US still want to live in a "moral" nation; but they lose a lot of people due to bigotry.

Are you implying that Republicans are 'more' moral than democrats?
Almalieque wrote:
There are ways to address these issues without making people feel less of a person. Instead of outright making it more difficult for women to have abortions, address the issues that place women in those scenarios to reduce abortions.
...and here you imply that abortions are immoral, but tolerated for the sake of the 'woman (ugh).

Why is an abortion immoral?



Edited, Aug 20th 2013 5:55pm by Elinda
____________________________
LOOK here.
#24 Aug 20 2013 at 10:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,827 posts
gbaji wrote:
At the end of the day, our society does hold certain moral values in high regard. We care about infidelity. We care about theft. We care about bribery. We care about abuse of power. We care about abortion. And we do expect our leaders to share those same positions on those issues.
I'd not add abortion to that list.
Quote:
While this is obviously a broad brush argument, the general trend does seem to follow this pattern. It's almost like both parties know that these moral positions are important to the voters, but Democrats view them as an obstacle to be overcome, while Republicans see them as virtues to strive to meet.
I don't agree. I don't think democrats are clamoring for more and better ways to cheat on their spouses anymore than republicans are. If anything, I'd hold gay marriage up as proof that democrats are striving to eliminate infidelity...much more so than republicans anyways.
Quote:
And this attitude applies to supporters on the left and right as well. Both sides are upset when their respective leaders fail to meet those moral expectations, but it really seems like folks on the left care more about such failures to the degree that it may affect their party's power, while those on the right actually care that their leaders failed.
This is just your thick, dense mind-blinders again - ignore it.
Quote:
It's related to something I've spoken about in the past. To me, one of the big differences in how liberals and conservatives view politics, is that liberals are ends driven, while conservatives are means driven. Liberals care about the end goal/outcome. Everything along the way is an obstacle to those ends. So a Democrat politician getting embroiled in a scandal is a problem for liberals because it's a scandal which will make it difficult to move towards some important political end, not because of what he did. A Republican doing the same thing is a problem for conservatives because of what he did, period. We believe that how you accomplish things is as important (if not more so) than what you accomplish.
You're repeating yourself but using more words. Integrity is a human characteristic. Republican's haven't cornered the market on it - sorry.
Quote:
I suppose it's also tied into the idea that conservatives are innately distrustful of government. It's why we don't want it to have too much power, even when our guys are wielding it.
Smiley: lolThanks for the laugh.

Anyone who's ever had a civics class knows that the government should always operate under heavy scrutiny. Just say that Republicans tend to be more paranoid. Though I'd still dispute it.
Quote:
We believe that if someone can't be trusted in their personal lives and actions, they probably can't be trusted in their professional/political lives either.
yeah thanks, 'we' believe that too.
Quote:
Liberals seem to believe (foolishly IMO) that it's ok for a politician to lie, cheat, steal, etc as long as they're doing so "for the cause" so to speak.
No they don't. But thanks for saying the same wrong thing in like three different ways.
Quote:
I think that the problem with that is that if he's willing to lie to the other guys to get what he wants, why do you assume he's not lying to you as well?
Yes, repetition.

Let me bring you back to a thread about two would be lawmakers running against each other. The video clearly showed the scenario; A debate. One debater held up pictures of the other and attempted to humiliate her for going shopping and wearing a nice outfit. This was his path to win an election. Is this an ok 'means' to you? (say yes as you defended his behavior).

____________________________
LOOK here.
#25 Aug 20 2013 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,827 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
If it adds crap social programs that takes my money to pay for someone else to get unnecessary foot fungus treatments, or huge increases in long term debt with no real measurable reward I have a problem with it. /shrug.
Being rid of mad foot-eating fungus isn't reward enough?
____________________________
LOOK here.
#26 Aug 20 2013 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,827 posts
Yodabunny wrote:

The US needs something in the middle.

Hmmm, like a belly-button.

We need an American Navel!
____________________________
LOOK here.
#27 Aug 20 2013 at 11:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
10,851 posts
Elinda wrote:
Yodabunny wrote:

The US needs something in the middle.

Hmmm, like a belly-button.

We need an American Navel!


I thought the Bible Belt has it covered?
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#28 Aug 20 2013 at 11:42 AM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
I thought the Bible Belt has it covered?
My belt holds my pants up, but the belt loops hold my belt up. I don't really know what's happening down there. Who is the real hero?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#29 Aug 20 2013 at 11:43 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
10,851 posts
Elinda wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
If it adds crap social programs that takes my money to pay for someone else to get unnecessary foot fungus treatments, or huge increases in long term debt with no real measurable reward I have a problem with it. /shrug.
Being rid of mad foot-eating fungus isn't reward enough?


Don't worry, once it reaches this stage they'll be throwing cash at those people hand over foot.

Screenshot
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#30 Aug 20 2013 at 11:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
Let me bring you back to a thread about two would be lawmakers running against each other. The video clearly showed the scenario; A debate. One debater held up pictures of the other and attempted to humiliate her for going shopping and wearing a nice outfit. This was his path to win an election. Is this an ok 'means' to you? (say yes as you defended his behavior).

I should be the last person to tell you not to bother with Gbaji but you know this will just be a long slew of shifting boundaries, nebulous relativism and "It's okay when they do it". This is the same person who thinks it's more moral and less reprehensible to straight-up lie to your wife, children and government as you quietly skip town to bang some chick than it is to flirt (ineptly and embarrassingly) via Twitter.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#31 Aug 20 2013 at 12:13 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,343 posts
Quote:
This is the same person who thinks it's more moral and less reprehensible to straight-up lie to your wife, children and government as you quietly skip town to bang some chick than it is to flirt (ineptly and embarrassingly) via Twitter.


That's a little specious. We all know the actual immorality here is being a Democrat.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#32 Aug 20 2013 at 3:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Democrats protect people's freedoms and try to keep people well rounded through health, education and wealth equalization. The fix the problem approach. Social engineering, if people don't feel the need to do bad things they won't.

Republicans try to keep people well rounded through direct control of their moral decisions. This is actually the removal of freedom. It's the hit it harder approach. Police state with the illusion of freedom through isolation (people tend to associate "Police state" with Democrats due to positions on gun legislation, but I feel it's the opposite.)


This is a fairly absurd (and wholly inaccurate) representation of the two approaches. I'm not surprised you'd think this though, given how far into the liberal tank our media is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Aug 20 2013 at 4:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Elinda wrote:
]I'd not add abortion to that list.


Why not? I think most people do believe that there are moral aspects to the issue of abortion. Hell. I'd be concerned about anyone who didn't think there is a moral aspect. For most people, it's a conflict between the innately immoral act of terminating an otherwise viable pregnancy versus a woman's right to control her own body. People fall on all parts of the scale between those two, but that is the primary axis of the issue. If not, then what is? If there were no moral angle, then why not allow elective abortion right up to the moment of birth?



Quote:
I don't agree. I don't think democrats are clamoring for more and better ways to cheat on their spouses anymore than republicans are. If anything, I'd hold gay marriage up as proof that democrats are striving to eliminate infidelity...much more so than republicans anyways.


That's not what I was talking about. I was saying that Democrats seem to be more likely to be motivated to avoid (or conceal) behavior the public might not like, not out of an agreement with the public that said behavior is "wrong", but out of a desire to avoid the scandal and the harm it might to do their party's position and power. And Democrat supporters (aka "liberals") tend to be more likely to share this view and also be more annoyed at the fact that a scandal is occurring than at the act which may have created the scandal.

One need only look at Obama's "phony scandals" approach going on right now to see this in action. He's playing on that very viewpoint. He knows that his audience (liberals) are more willing to ignore the actions themselves, but care about the fact that a scandal (whole set of them in his case) is causing a disruption in his ability to get more important things done.


Quote:
You're repeating yourself but using more words.


I repeat myself in order to ensure that the person reading my post understands what I'm trying to say. Given that you completely missed the point I was making, it would seem like maybe *more* repetition is needed.

Quote:
Integrity is a human characteristic. Republican's haven't cornered the market on it - sorry.


I didn't say that. This is not an "all or nothing" scenario. I'm talking about trends here.

Quote:
Anyone who's ever had a civics class knows that the government should always operate under heavy scrutiny. Just say that Republicans tend to be more paranoid. Though I'd still dispute it.


Dems are much more likely to look the other way though, if the increase in government power is framed in the context of some greater "good" (like say health care reform, education reform, sexual/gender/race equality, etc). And when Republicans oppose such things, they're accused of wanting people to die from illness, or are opposed to education, or hate women, gays, blacks, etc. And liberals certainly don't blink at the prospect of jumping right on that bandwagon when it comes along.

So yeah. Liberals are vastly more likely to ignore increases in government power.

Quote:
yeah thanks, 'we' believe that too.


And yet, didn't we just have a thread where many of the forum liberals were saying that what Weiner did wasn't a big deal? I had to point out like 3 or 4 times that the issue wasn't about the sexual aspect of what he did, but that it represented both a lack of self control and a casual willingness to lie about it. And when I did that the usual response was that it shouldn't be a big deal because what he was doing wasn't that bad. Clear indication of the liberal willingness to ignore lying to the public. In this case, it doesn't matter what he was lying about, but the fact that he did it.


Quote:
Quote:
Liberals seem to believe (foolishly IMO) that it's ok for a politician to lie, cheat, steal, etc as long as they're doing so "for the cause" so to speak.
No they don't. But thanks for saying the same wrong thing in like three different ways.


See the example of Weiner above.


Quote:
Let me bring you back to a thread about two would be lawmakers running against each other. The video clearly showed the scenario; A debate. One debater held up pictures of the other and attempted to humiliate her for going shopping and wearing a nice outfit. This was his path to win an election. Is this an ok 'means' to you? (say yes as you defended his behavior).



I don't know what you're talking about (or who). Can you be more specific?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#34 Aug 20 2013 at 4:31 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,827 posts
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
]I'd not add abortion to that list.


Why not?
It's more of an ethical issue. Don't you think?
____________________________
LOOK here.
#35 Aug 20 2013 at 4:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And yet, didn't we just have a thread where many of the forum liberals were saying that what Weiner did wasn't a big deal? I had to point out like 3 or 4 times that the issue wasn't about the sexual aspect of what he did, but that it represented both a lack of self control and a casual willingness to lie about it. And when I did that the usual response was that it shouldn't be a big deal because what he was doing wasn't that bad. Clear indication of the liberal willingness to ignore lying to the public. In this case, it doesn't matter what he was lying about, but the fact that he did it.

Weiner is tanking in the Democratic primary of a very Democratic city. He's at something like 16% or 6% now (forget which). He hasn't changed any part of his platform since the scandal re-erupted and used to be the clear front-runner. So if he's your example of how liberals don't care...

Edit: Split the difference, Quinnipiac says 10%

Edited, Aug 20th 2013 5:39pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Aug 20 2013 at 4:38 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,613 posts
Well, he was until you pointed that out. Don't worry, gbaji will find you another one.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#37 Aug 20 2013 at 4:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nah, he's just attach on to how the opinions of a couple non-New York people on the forum is a greater representation of the will of the NY Democratic voter than the Democratic primary voting population of New York City.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Aug 20 2013 at 5:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,343 posts
Quote:
Why not? I think most people do believe that there are moral aspects to the issue of abortion. Hell. I'd be concerned about anyone who didn't think there is a moral aspect.


I see little to it that's a moral question. As far as I'm concerned, the fetus is not a person and is therefore not afforded the rights, privileges, or protections of a person. I don't think it becomes a person until a fair bit of time after birth, but I accept birth as a convenient time to start treating it as a person for the sake of our societal health, and because it's not feasible to measure any one point where personhood emerges.

So, no, I don't see abortion as a moral issue. Certainly not "innately immoral." And even if I considered a fetus a person, I certainly don't believe that any one person has a moral obligation to forfeit control of their own body in favor of the health and happiness of another. I'm happy to offer praise to anyone who sacrifices for the sake of others, but I'm not going to attempt to morally blacken the refusal to do so.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#39 Aug 20 2013 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
I was reading about wiener today and thinking that was a good example against Gbaji's argument and then I come here and he's somehow trying to bend it his way. That's so @#%^ing crazy. I love it.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#40 Aug 20 2013 at 5:57 PM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Edit: Split the difference, Quinnipiac says 10%
It's either oversampling or Weiner has momentum if his arguments during the Presidential elections are any indication.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#41 Aug 20 2013 at 6:13 PM Rating: Excellent
I have to say, the daily show's coverage of Carlos danger has been awesome.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#42 Aug 20 2013 at 6:23 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,024 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I have to say, the daily show's coverage of Carlos danger has been awesome.


Took a while to find the song.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#43 Aug 20 2013 at 8:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I was reading about wiener today and thinking that was a good example against Gbaji's argument and then I come here and he's somehow trying to bend it his way.


Because the point I was making in this thread is not about whether liberals or conservatives support or oppose someone engaged in a scandal but *why* they do so. My position is that conservatives are more likely to be upset at the actual act the person did, while liberals are more to be upset that there's a scandal. This manifests as conservatives condemning sending sexy pics to people and condemning even more his lying about it, while liberals seem more upset that he was foolish enough to get caught doing this. Hell. Go back and read the thread we had about this. There are a number of posts in there that give the distinct impression that if only he hadn't been caught lying about this, everything would have been fine.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#44 Aug 20 2013 at 8:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
]I'd not add abortion to that list.


Why not?
It's more of an ethical issue. Don't you think?


I think that's splitting hairs though. Morals are generally ethics applied to a society rather than an individual (or applied on a society wide manner). While an ethical decision generally considers just the situation in front of you in a vacuum, a moral decision weighs the opinions of the society (ok. super simple distinction anyway). Since we're talking about a social policy and the laws which might derive from that, I think it's absolutely a moral issue.

I get that some want it to be just an ethical issue (just the woman's choice with no outside influence), but in reality, it's not. Else, as I said earlier, we would not have any restrictions on abortion at all. We do. Thus, society does care.

Oh. Idiggory? Your position on abortion is ridiculously outside the mainstream though. So while interesting, it doesn't carry a lot of weight here. No politician is going to run on the "abortion is fine even up to a few weeks after birth" platform because the 99.9% of the population that doesn't think that's even remotely ok would condemn his position.

Edited, Aug 20th 2013 7:43pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Aug 20 2013 at 9:11 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,098 posts
gbaji wrote:

I suppose it's also tied into the idea that conservatives are innately distrustful of government. It's why we don't want it to have too much power, even when our guys are wielding it.



Do you enjoy the taste of lies in your mouth?


"Conservatives" enjoy large government just as ever bit as much as any leftist on the globe. You fuckers just want it large in different areas. . .sometimes.


After all it was the "conservatives" that gave Medicare the single largest expansion since it inception as an example. Another great example is the policy currently being driven by the Republican Party as a whole, in the vaunted Paul Ryan budget merely slows the exponential rate in which we are burning through borrowed money, it doesn't stop it. Where is the Paul Ryan budget failing so miserably? Defense spending.

Liberals won't cut back on social policy and Conservatives won't scale back defense spending.

Both of which, at least from my point of view, are unsustainable and mind-bogglingly so.

-NW

Edited, Aug 20th 2013 8:11pm by NaughtyWord
____________________________
The Pessimist: A person who looks both ways before crossing a one-way street.
#46 Aug 20 2013 at 11:58 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,805 posts
Elinda wrote:

Are you implying that Republicans are 'more' moral than democrats?


No, I'm stating that Republicans tend to want to push their beliefs onto others, while Democrats tend to accept that everyone isn't the same. As a result, the people who favor activities that others might consider "immoral" tend to flock to the Democrats. Since Democrats support the freedom of expressions, it APPEARS that Republicans are more moral than Democrats, but that isn't the case in reference to the definition of each party.

It's not that Republicans are more moral, but Democrats are more tolerable.

Elinda wrote:
...and here you imply that abortions are immoral, but tolerated for the sake of the 'woman (ugh).

Why is an abortion immoral?


No. I am stating that in an ideal environment, people wouldn't be having abortions. If you are morally against abortions, for whatever reason, then you should address the issues that place couples in those situations in the first place, not blatantly fight it when the law is the law.

You really butchered my text, but thank you for at least asking.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#47 Aug 21 2013 at 6:20 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
Morals are generally ethics applied to a society rather than an individual

Or in the case of Republicans, ethics applied to THOSE people.
____________________________
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.

#48 Aug 21 2013 at 7:36 AM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
gbaji wrote:
Because the point I was making in this thread is not about whether liberals or conservatives support or oppose someone engaged in a scandal but *why* they do so.
It actually was but you couldn't support it so, par for the course, you're mutating it to something else and hoping that'll stick.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#49 Aug 21 2013 at 7:55 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
My position is that conservatives are more likely to be upset at the actual act the person did, while liberals are more to be upset that there's a scandal. This manifests as conservatives condemning sending sexy pics to people and condemning even more his lying about it,

It manifests as conservatives wanting to avoid policy discussion whenever possible, because the policy positions are laughably absurd. The GOP communication cation strategy of the last 10 years has been to manufacture outrage rather than address policy. Which is fine, and obviously works, but the primary difference in style is that usually Democrats are upset about actual consequences of legislation where Republicans live in a magical victim fantasy where hard working white people can only not succeed if "other people" actively handicap them.
____________________________
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.

#50 Aug 21 2013 at 8:09 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,827 posts
Almalieque wrote:

No. I am stating that in an ideal environment, people wouldn't be having abortions.
You could simply state that in an ideal environment people wouldn't be having sex. Then the unwanted pregnancy issue is moot.

But still you go on to equate abortions with morality. My point was that if we (society) have decided abortions are an ok method of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, why would we continue to propagate a belief that they're immoral?


____________________________
LOOK here.
#51 Aug 21 2013 at 8:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts

But still you go on to equate abortions with morality. My point was that if we (society) have decided abortions are an ok method of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, why would we continue to propagate a belief that they're immoral?


Society hasn't decided abortions are "an ok method of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy". That's a ludicrous statement. Society has decided it shouldn't be illegal, that's a massive difference. Society doesn't think drinking to unconsciousness alone in one's home is "an ok way of dealing with being sad" either, in case we're going to extrapolate other perfectly legal actions into social norms because...magic?
____________________________
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.

« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 53 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Demoncard, Jophiel, lolgaxe, RavennofTitan, Anonymous Guests (48)