Partisan Politics Good For America?

[Dan H]

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.

To an extent you're right but the soft drink ban was for the city of New York, significantly larger than some state rep from Arizona. The rainwater tax is for the entire state of Maryland; the light bulb and toilet thing for the entire country. The scales differ greatly.

But I think we both agree that both parties have paternalistic tendencies; it just differs as to where they tend to try to apply it.

[OE32]

Awful defensive, Andy.

I think everyone should have a basic understanding of economics, history and law. I don't think I've been espousing legalese at all. At all. And I haven't quoted committee reports or hidden sections of statutes. Stuff's boring anyway. You're projecting wildly.

As I've said, I enjoyed my conversations with Nodack, so I may not go, though I'll leave your conversations alone. But I think you just stated that you don't think you should have any influence on policy. Unfortunately, we live in a democracy, and the votes of fools count as much as mine. Pardon me if I feel invested in the ideas of others.

[LazarusLong]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive"

Legislating morality works as well as fighting wars for peace.

[Nodack]

And yet every country on planet Earth legislates morality. It would be nice is we didn't have to make laws making it illegal to kill, steal, etc. What is the Ten Comandments? God legislating morality. "Thou shall not _______ or you will suffer eternal hell."

Let's start a new country without any laws and see how that ends up.

[Dan H]

That's a deeper debate though, isn't it? Is "don't kill people" legislating morality? How about "don't take or break another person's stuff"?

I mean at the root of it all law is morality, but I think when you get into the realm of regulating behavior that only impacts one's self, is where I personally draw the line.

I mean, we're told "my body, my choice" when it comes to abortion, so if I accept that as a logical conclusion, what right does Mike Bloomberg have to tell me I can't have a 44oz Diet Pepsi at the movies? Or to buy a pack of cigarettes and sell some of them to someone else?

Personally I could care less what everyone else does with their life so long as a) it doesn't potentially effect me from a physical standpoint (Drunk driving for example) or b) create an expectation of payment or requirement of approval.

[LazarusLong]

I probably should have defined morality better. I meant "religious morality, or God-based morality, as opposed to morality based on a quasi-Hobbsist social contract.

[LazarusLong]

"Let's start a new country without any laws and see how that ends up."

C'mon. You know that is not what I said.

[Indy]

I mean at the root of it all law is morality, but I think when you get into the realm of regulating behavior that only impacts one's self, is where I personally draw the line.

Interesting take. I don't think all laws are based on morality, especially the ones you referenced originally.


And doesn't Cruz violate that last portion of your statement?

[Ghost]

Awful defensive, Andy.

I think everyone should have a basic understanding of economics, history and law. I don't think I've been espousing legalese at all. At all. And I haven't quoted committee reports or hidden sections of statutes. Stuff's boring anyway. You're projecting wildly.

As I've said, I enjoyed my conversations with Nodack, so I may not go, though I'll leave your conversations alone. But I think you just stated that you don't think you should have any influence on policy. Unfortunately, we live in a democracy, and the votes of fools count as much as mine. Pardon me if I feel invested in the ideas of others.

I wasn't projecting, I was describing the nature of the conversations we are actually having and have always had on this thread. You came out of nowhere expecting us to make it all about policy, but it rarely is, because there is a lot more to politics than policy. I'm not sure why you got so upset about this, but whatever.

What is going on with you? Over the last couple months you turned from being a pretty reasonable, intelligent, and opinionated guy into something of a self-righteous jerk. Leave if you want; I won't miss the attitude, but I do miss the OE32 who used to come here. Tell him I say hi if you see him.

[Ghost]

And yet every country on planet Earth legislates morality. It would be nice is we didn't have to make laws making it illegal to kill, steal, etc. What is the Ten Comandments? God legislating morality. "Thou shall not _______ or you will suffer eternal hell."

Weird how he left out rape and slavery, though. That always bothered me.

[Indy]

And yet every country on planet Earth legislates morality. It would be nice is we didn't have to make laws making it illegal to kill, steal, etc. What is the Ten Comandments? God legislating morality. "Thou shall not _______ or you will suffer eternal hell."

Weird how he left out rape and slavery, though. That always bothered me.

As it should. There are few (if any) crimes worse.

[OE32]

Awful defensive, Andy.

I think everyone should have a basic understanding of economics, history and law. I don't think I've been espousing legalese at all. At all. And I haven't quoted committee reports or hidden sections of statutes. Stuff's boring anyway. You're projecting wildly.

As I've said, I enjoyed my conversations with Nodack, so I may not go, though I'll leave your conversations alone. But I think you just stated that you don't think you should have any influence on policy. Unfortunately, we live in a democracy, and the votes of fools count as much as mine. Pardon me if I feel invested in the ideas of others.

I wasn't projecting, I was describing the nature of the conversations we are actually having and have always had on this thread. You came out of nowhere expecting us to make it all about policy, but it rarely is, because there is a lot more to politics than policy. I'm not sure why you got so upset about this, but whatever.

What is going on with you? Over the last couple months you turned from being a pretty reasonable, intelligent, and opinionated guy into something of a self-righteous jerk. Leave if you want; I won't miss the attitude, but I do miss the OE32 who used to come here. Tell him I say hi if you see him.

You can say hi to him yourself on the Suns/NBA page.

I know I'm not very kind when it comes to politics. It's not a game without real consequences, like basketball. Also, unlike basketball, generally, people's opinions determine what the higher-ups end up doing.

I don't know what your profession is, but if there were a sub-message board dedicated to it on this site, and roughly 50% of the people fervently believed utter nonsense with respect to it (admittedly, a good percentage of people in my profession believe utter nonsense, so not a perfect comparison), I'm not sure your reaction would be all that different from mine.

Seriously, what's the problem with low-flow toilets? Enjoy your conversation.

[Dan H]

I mean at the root of it all law is morality, but I think when you get into the realm of regulating behavior that only impacts one's self, is where I personally draw the line.

Interesting take. I don't think all laws are based on morality, especially the ones you referenced originally.


And doesn't Cruz violate that last portion of your statement?

Which position of his does so?

[Indy]

I mean at the root of it all law is morality, but I think when you get into the realm of regulating behavior that only impacts one's self, is where I personally draw the line.

Interesting take. I don't think all laws are based on morality, especially the ones you referenced originally.


And doesn't Cruz violate that last portion of your statement?

Which position of his does so?

His stance on allowing states to not recognize same sex marriage. It is a perfect example of legislating something that only impacts oneself.

[Ghost]

You can say hi to him yourself on the Suns/NBA page.

I know I'm not very kind when it comes to politics. It's not a game without real consequences, like basketball. Also, unlike basketball, generally, people's opinions determine what the higher-ups end up doing.

I don't know what your profession is, but if there were a sub-message board dedicated to it on this site, and roughly 50% of the people fervently believed utter nonsense with respect to it (admittedly, a good percentage of people in my profession believe utter nonsense, so not a perfect comparison), I'm not sure your reaction would be all that different from mine.

Seriously, what's the problem with low-flow toilets? Enjoy your conversation.

You won't find me on the Suns board. I lost all interest in the NBA during the last lockout, and I have no interest in following the again. I am only here because I like talking with a lot of you guys.

If my job had me hating life half of the time, I would look for a new job. I can't imagine being that bitter.

I have no problem with low flow toilets.

[Nodack]

I have no problem with low flow toilets as long as things keep flowing...

"Let's start a new country without any laws and see how that ends up."

C'mon. You know that is not what I said.

No offense meant Laz. We were talking about dumb laws that politicians try to pass to legislate morality and it sounded like you were saying passing laws to legislate people's morality(acceptable behavior) is a waste of time and doesn't work. What came to mind was that all laws are legislated morality dating back thousands of years and IMO they don't always work, but generally speaking they do let the public know what is acceptable behavior and what isn't and that deviating from acceptable behavior has consequences.

Andy brought up a great point and to me cements the position that the god most people worship never existed. If God did indeed hand Moses the Ten Commandments he wouldn't have left slavery off the list. Slavery was morally accepted back then by the people of the day. Only a human in that day would have done that IMO.

We humans decide what is morally acceptable. Our country has a whole set of checks and balances that try to get it right, but in the end we all decide what is morally acceptable. When some politician tries to legislate what they think is morally acceptable and it goes against what the majority thinks their idea gets squashed pretty fast. The banning of large Cokes didn't fly. Making it a law that we all have to go to church didn't fly.

I think we generally agree that we don't want government telling us what we can and can't do to our own bodies, but then again we make exceptions. If your horse pulls up lame and is suffering, the moral thing is to shoot it dead. If we pull up lame and want to end the suffering it is against the law to end your life. Some drugs are Ok and some aren't. Abortion is always a hot topic. but we almost all agree that we want government to help protect us from other people doing harm to us. Where to draw that line is always under debate on that one though. We all agree that we want a law that punishes somebody killing another person, but we don't all agree on how strict laws should be on toxic waste disposal or fracking.

We all need health care at times, but half the country hates Obamacare. Is it morally acceptable to claim to be the most advanced country in the world and then have by far the most expensive health care in the world and be the only Industrialized country on earth without Universal Health Care? No matter what party you belong to you have to see a problem there. Who addressed the problem? Not Republicans. Is Obamacare perfect? No. There is no perfect and we will never ever 100% agree on what perfect is. Could it be improved and should it be improved in a bipartisan way? Duh. I give Obamacare a C- and the Republicans didn't get a grade because they didn't turn in a paper and that reflects on their overall grade. Write a better paper and do it while there is a Republican in the WH, then I will take them seriously on the topic. Right now they just appose Obamacare period.

Same sex marriage. Again, what is moral( accepted behavior)? We people decide what is acceptable through our voices and voting. Most people aren't gay. Puts them in the minority and the majority can stomp on them if they deem it acceptable. We as a country continue to evolve and progress whether people want it to or not. It has now become socially acceptable to be gay and like always the word conservative applies to Republicans. Conservatives always have their foot on the brake and liberals always have their foot on the gas. The evolution process continues slowly but surely. Alexander The Great, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michealangelo, James Buchanan, Walt Whitman, Oscar Wilde, Abraham Lincoln, Elenor Roosevelt. All gay according to historical scholars.

[OE32]

If my job had me hating life half of the time, I would look for a new job. I can't imagine being that bitter.

Andy, it's not just this statement. You really don't seem to be very good at reading comprehension. Maybe that's why my very regular words and phrases come across to you as "legalese."

My job gives me the opportunity to make a difference. I have a pretty big idea which has some possibility of coming to fruition in the next few years, and if it does, it could have a trillion dollar impact. You read that right. Trillion. I would probably get mere millions out of it over the course of a long career, but you can see how possibilities like that might make one the opposite of frustrated.

[LazarusLong]

"What came to mind was that all laws are legislated morality dating back thousands of years and IMO they don't always work, but generally speaking they do let the public know what is acceptable behavior and what isn't and that deviating from acceptable behavior has consequences."

I know you didn't mean to offend.

However, as stated, your premise is faulty.

Many legal codes, especially in Western civilization, are based on the social contract theory. In short, you give up certain supposedly unalienable rights for the right to be protected by the community in which you live. Instead living exposed out in nature, you live within a fort/protected settlement and abide by the rules of the settlement.

I will grant you that some laws are/were based on morals. But fundamental legal code is premised on the security of the state. Traffic laws are based on prudent action, not what was stated in the New or Old Testament, the Upanishads or the Qur' an, for example. It's why laws against gay marriage are being overturned. "It's an abomination against God!" Whose god? What if you are an atheist or humanist? Does god vote?

What it gets down to is ethics vs. morals. Morals can be thought of as the principles on which a person's judgments of right and wrong are based. Ethics are principles of right conduct. The main difference is that morals are more abstract, subjective, and often personal or religion-based, while ethics are more practical, conceived as shared principles promoting fairness in social and business interactions.

[Indy]

I like that break down DC.

[Indy]

If my job had me hating life half of the time, I would look for a new job. I can't imagine being that bitter.

Andy, it's not just this statement. You really don't seem to be very good at reading comprehension. Maybe that's why my very regular words and phrases come across to you as "legalese."

My job gives me the opportunity to make a difference. I have a pretty big idea which has some possibility of coming to fruition in the next few years, and if it does, it could have a trillion dollar impact. You read that right. Trillion. I would probably get mere millions out of it over the course of a long career, but you can see how possibilities like that might make one the opposite of frustrated.

Careful, your superiority complex is showing again.