Phx-Suns.Net

OE32 wrote:HEY HOW ABOUT SOMEONE TALK ABOUT ACTUAL POLICY

if you're not interested in policy, why are you interested in politics?

Politics isn't always about policy, and we are all armchair quarterbacks here. I think we are all interested in policy, but that's not the discussion we've been having. So, chill out, friend.

Dan H wrote:I never said anyone personally called me an unperson, but the meme has been around for over a decade.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/jesusland

Ahh, so you saw it on the Internet, and while you haven't been called an Unperson because of your faith, you are jaded about being called an Unperson of faith. Wait...what?

It's funny how the left is all for diversity until it's one of their oxes being gored. Roman Polanski is a fugitive rapist, but we should look past that because he's a gifted filmmaker. Ted Cruz wants to talk about Israel? ERMAGARD, he has the same position on gay marriage as Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama circa 2009? He must not be allowed to speak! Who cares if it's a completely separate issue!?!

Sigh. Now you are Gish Galloping. Polanski? Arrest him. Clinton and Obama in 2009? Bowing to political pressure...I don't like it, but it happens.

So the bloody hell what? Cruz has the right to sound like an idiot any time he wants. "The left" has the right to speak against him. Do you not understand how your First Amendment works? NOBODY is telling Cruz to shut up.

Seriously, can you address the part of my post that you quoted and then tried to toss aside? Because you are seriously making me sound right. I'll repost it for you.

you support the rights of a business to discriminate based on religion (you said as much regarding GayCakeGate), but you are actually opposed to the CUSTOMER saying no to a business because of ties (or even perceived ties) that they might view as a conflict of interest?

Let me state that again...you are saying that people disagreeing with the politics of Ted Cruz and using only their wallets to make their point are against diversity? You, the guy who thinks that the market should have resolved all bias regarding gay cakes in and of itself by people just not buying gay cakes, are opposed to someone withholding business from associates of Ted Cruz for...well, for whatever reason they want? And you think that means they are trying to shut him up and destroy him, and not just refusing to be associated with him?

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Let me state that again...you are saying that people disagreeing with the politics of Ted Cruz and using only their wallets to make their point are against diversity? You, the guy who thinks that the market should have resolved all bias regarding gay cakes in and of itself by people just not buying gay cakes, are opposed to someone withholding business from associates of Ted Cruz for...well, for whatever reason they want? And you think that means they are trying to shut him up and destroy him, and not just refusing to be associated with him?

No, they're not trying to destroy Ted Cruz, they're trying to destroy someone who's on their side for stepping outside of the accepted realm of thought or action for their cultural group. That's why it's different from the pizza place, the action is coming from people who are nominally on their side.

I mean ostensibly yeah, they're punishing them in the marketplace, but they've also canceled an AIDS benefit in response. (Which is another difference from the pizza situation - that was based off of an opinion while this is the result of an actual act). That seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face, honestly. George W. Bush increased AIDS funding to a greater extent than any President, did people refuse to accept it because they didn't agree with his other policies?

Anyhow, the larger point is this - the political left has become much more ideologically compressed in recent years - not to mention highly adverse to dissent (just ask Rep. Tulsi Gabbard). What do I mean? How many pro-2A Democrats are there? Compare and contrast with the pro/versus 2A breakdown of the GOP. Where are the moderate Dems like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Tip O'Neil, and Zell Miller? They don't exist anymore, because the party is increasingly anti diversity of position within its own ranks. Heck, what with JFK's talk of supply-side economics and his position on the 2nd Amendment, would he be welcome in today's Democrat party?

"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget.... As the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues. Prosperity is the real way to balance our budget. By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and income, we can expand tax revenues and finally bring our budget into balance." - JFK

"By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the 2nd amendment, will ever be a major danger to our Nation, the amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the 2nd Amendment will always be important."

Ghost wrote:

OE32 wrote:HEY HOW ABOUT SOMEONE TALK ABOUT ACTUAL POLICY

if you're not interested in policy, why are you interested in politics?

Politics isn't always about policy, and we are all armchair quarterbacks here. I think we are all interested in policy, but that's not the discussion we've been having. So, chill out, friend.

My complaint is that you guys are arguing about arguments about gay marriage and now supply-side economics, without ever actually having to take positions on these issues. It seems to me that whether you approve of a protester should principally have to do with whether you support their position. I haven't seen Dan take a position on any of these things: he's just mad that liberals are Democrats are liberals.

Don't think he can see my comments, so why don't you ask him for me: does he think supply-side economics works? Does he see any reason why the consequences of lowering taxes might be positive 50 years ago but not today? Does he think gays should have a constitutional right to marry and have equal access to public accommodations? You guys have managed to get into an argument in which you can't be wrong, because no one's actually taking a position on anything!

No, they're not trying to destroy Ted Cruz, they're trying to destroy someone who's on their side for stepping outside of the accepted realm of thought or action for their cultural group. That's why it's different from the pizza place, the action is coming from people who are nominally on their side.

I mean ostensibly yeah, they're punishing them in the marketplace, but they've also canceled an AIDS benefit in response. (Which is another difference from the pizza situation - that was based off of an opinion while this is the result of an actual act). That seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face, honestly. George W. Bush increased AIDS funding to a greater extent than any President, did people refuse to accept it because they didn't agree with his other policies?

No, they are not trying to destroy anyone. They cancelled an event. They didn't go into open warfare mode and try to ruin the business. And yeah, you have a point...it seems the people they are damaging the most by cancelling the event is their own organization. So, I would agree that they are being stupid...but it's still their money and their right to spend it where they want to. It's not an act of war, and they aren't trying to destroy anyone.

I wasn't referring to Pizzagate, but specifically to GayCakeGate, where services were refused specifically because of discrimination. And I've said over and over what my opinion is about that, but I'll can repeat it if you would like.

Anyhow, the larger point is this - the political left has become much more ideologically compressed in recent years - not to mention highly adverse to dissent (just ask Rep. Tulsi Gabbard). What do I mean? How many pro-2A Democrats are there? Compare and contrast with the pro/versus 2A breakdown of the GOP. Where are the moderate Dems like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Tip O'Neil, and Zell Miller? They don't exist anymore, because the party is increasingly anti diversity of position within its own ranks. Heck, what with JFK's talk of supply-side economics and his position on the 2nd Amendment, would he be welcome in today's Democrat party?

Obama is a moderate Democrat. The right has just moved so far right since Bush Jr. that your perspective is skewed. Also, please stop referring to "the left" when you are specifically talking about the Democratic Party. They are not the same. I am on "the left," clearly. I hate the parties and the system they have created (and broken).

As for pro-gun democrats, here you go: http://bit.ly/1DNsX3t

Which democrat is trying to take away your guns? I can't think of anyone who is actually opposed to the 2nd Amendment. Supporting gun control is not opposition to the amendment, remember.

As for JFK, the political landscape shifts constantly. I don't know or care if he'd be welcome in the party; first of all, I have nothing to do with the party, and second, that was 50 years ago, and is not at all relevant.

OE32 wrote:My complaint is that you guys are arguing about arguments about gay marriage and now supply-side economics, without ever actually having to take positions on these issues. It seems to me that whether you approve of a protester should principally have to do with whether you support their position. I haven't seen Dan take a position on any of these things: he's just mad that liberals are Democrats are liberals.

Don't think he can see my comments, so why don't you ask him for me: does he think supply-side economics works? Does he see any reason why the consequences of lowering taxes might be positive 50 years ago but not today? Does he think gays should have a constitutional right to marry and have equal access to public accommodations? You guys have managed to get into an argument in which you can't be wrong, because no one's actually taking a position on anything!

Ummm...how can you possibly have stuck with this forum so long and not figured out where everyone posting regularly stands on an issue (except Nodack...he likes his fence (sorry, Nodack )). Our current discussion is not one about policy at all, which you should know if you actually read the posts (and you must have, since you mention supply-side economics, which was only brought up by Dan in passing to attempt to make a point, not to actually debate the topic.

I haven't seen Dan take a position on any of these things: he's just mad that liberals are Democrats are liberals.

I think Dan's been pretty clear about his position, but I do agree with the latter half of your statement.

Ummm...how can you possibly have stuck with this forum so long and not figured out where everyone posting regularly stands on an issue (except Nodack...he likes his fence (sorry, Nodack )).

No offense taken. I like to think of it as an open mind.

Ha, I've had OE on ignore since his 'infected' remark, but that's pretty funny.

Modern Democrats aren't actually liberal at all, really. Adam Smith is a dirty word nowadays.

If I were going to dub them anything, it would be 'omnipotent moral busybodies'.

Dan H wrote:Ha, I've had OE on ignore since his 'infected' remark, but that's pretty funny.

Modern Democrats aren't actually liberal at all, really. Adam Smith is a dirty word nowadays.

If I were going to dub them anything, it would be 'omnipotent moral busybodies'.

That is really interesting. If I had to pin that label on one of the parties, it would be yours.

Eh, whatever. I'm done with the GOP if the candidate isn't Paul, Walker, or Cruz.

But you'really kidding yourself if you don't consider the Democrats just as bad. Unless we're talking about sex or abortion they have zero issue trying to tell people what they can do with self or property. Soft drink size bans? Cigarettes? Incandescent lightbulbs? Low flow toilets? Rainwater taxes? Did you miss the girl in Massachusetts kidnapped for nearly a year because some doctors didn't think the care she was getting in her home state was the proper treatment.

Maybe I will start the KYFHO party. Hmmm.

'omnipotent moral busybodies'

Soft drink size bans? Cigarettes? Incandescent lightbulbs? Low flow toilets? Rainwater taxes?

To be clear, I am not saying I support (or even understand) these bans you put out there, but what about them are about morals?

I'm done with the GOP if the candidate isn't Paul, Walker, or Cruz.

You list three guys, two of which are considered part of the top 3 in line for the nomination. So the GOP is in favor of them. Seems to contradict your feelings.

Dan H wrote:Maybe I will start the KYFHO party. Hmmm.

I am of the strong opinion everyone should star their own party.

Dan H wrote:Ha, I've had OE on ignore since his 'infected' remark, but that's pretty funny.

Ha! Looks like I both won and lost with that one.

Ghost wrote:

OE32 wrote:My complaint is that you guys are arguing about arguments about gay marriage and now supply-side economics, without ever actually having to take positions on these issues. It seems to me that whether you approve of a protester should principally have to do with whether you support their position. I haven't seen Dan take a position on any of these things: he's just mad that liberals are Democrats are liberals.

Don't think he can see my comments, so why don't you ask him for me: does he think supply-side economics works? Does he see any reason why the consequences of lowering taxes might be positive 50 years ago but not today? Does he think gays should have a constitutional right to marry and have equal access to public accommodations? You guys have managed to get into an argument in which you can't be wrong, because no one's actually taking a position on anything!

Ummm...how can you possibly have stuck with this forum so long and not figured out where everyone posting regularly stands on an issue (except Nodack...he likes his fence (sorry, Nodack )). Our current discussion is not one about policy at all, which you should know if you actually read the posts (and you must have, since you mention supply-side economics, which was only brought up by Dan in passing to attempt to make a point, not to actually debate the topic.

I haven't seen Dan take a position on any of these things: he's just mad that liberals are Democrats are liberals.

I think Dan's been pretty clear about his position, but I do agree with the latter half of your statement.

You're wrong and you're right, I think. He's been clear about who he is and what he stands for, but I don't think he's actually asserted and defended policy positions. You can guess what positions he'd effectuate with his vote, though. That's kinda sad, I think.

The result of all this is that your arguing has been about people, not ideas. It's tabloid politics. It explains how people can digest so much news and yet not be able to formulate meaningful solutions to problems.

Sigh. At least there's Nodack to keep me company.

Indy wrote:

'omnipotent moral busybodies'

Soft drink size bans? Cigarettes? Incandescent lightbulbs? Low flow toilets? Rainwater taxes?

To be clear, I am not saying I support (or even understand) these bans you put out there, but what about them are about morals?

This is all economics...

The loose cigarette ban does not seem to be good policy - the costs of enforcement outweigh the benefits. The soft drink size ban, either, because it's too obvious, too intrusive, and we should have more faith in the market over the long run than to go so far. Incandescent lightbulbs has to do with environmental consequences: it's a sensible regulation that doesn't pose a significant burden, I think (but, as with all things, I'm open to persuasion). But low flow toilets?? Come on! Water is a public resource for which no one bears the true cost. It's an area in desperate need of regulation, and we have cheap technologies that can help, and what's the burden of a low-flow toilet exactly? I honestly don't know what he's talking about with rainwater taxes, though.

Indy, perhaps it makes more sense in the full context of the quote. It's not necessarily about morality. BTW the encumbent GOPers hate Cruz and Paul. Did you miss McLame calling them wacko birds? Jeb and Rubio are their top two. Can't stand either.

Full quote:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

C.S. Lewis

The soft drink thing is the same thing as the AZ politician wanting to make it a law that everybody has to go to church. We can say that since Quomo or whoever said that was a Democrat that ALL Democrats want to ban big soft drinks. Since the AZ politician was a Republican ALL Republicans want to force ALL Americans to go to church. I would rather join the GOP than give up soft drinks. I would move to another country if they forced me to go to church. I got a scholarship offer to Grand Canyon when I was leaving g high school. They had an excellent guitar program from a teacher I admired. If you go there you are forced to take religious classes and that was enough for me to pass.

People seem to take everything any politician says as the official party line of everybody in that party when they don't agree with them. I can't vote GOP they all want to force me to go to church. I can't vote Democrat, they all want to ban soft drinks.

OE32 wrote:You're wrong and you're right, I think. He's been clear about who he is and what he stands for, but I don't think he's actually asserted and defended policy positions. You can guess what positions he'd effectuate with his vote, though. That's kinda sad, I think.

The result of all this is that your arguing has been about people, not ideas. It's tabloid politics. It explains how people can digest so much news and yet not be able to formulate meaningful solutions to problems.

Sigh. At least there's Nodack to keep me company.

No. We aren't debating policy. We aren't arguing through the minutia of legal speak in ever bill passed to Congress, or even in committee. We just talk. If you don't like it that much, then leave and find a forum where the discourse is on your level of legalese.

The result of all this is that your arguing has been about people, not ideas. It's tabloid politics. It explains how people can digest so much news and yet not be able to formulate meaningful solutions to problems.

I posted too soon.

So, reading a bunch of news and being able to understand it is supposed to be the be all and end all in making policy? You don't need to have a background in economics, politics, history, and any number of other fields makes you an expert in policy?

Give me a break. That might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this board.