• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Scalia is dead

Argumemnon said:
Considering their lack of productivity it seems that, in their minds, everything the Democrats do is bad for America, an ideological position rather than a rational one.



The key point is whether "best" is "best for them" or "best for the country". I'm arguing that it's the former.



Yes. Like all humans I can surmise people's intent through their actions.
Click to expand...

Vox had a whole piece about Republicans being ideological compared to Democrats as a transactional party. It seems you hit on the best evidence it is belief in what is good for the country.
 
Argumemnon said:
<snip>



I have never made any such argument. You are projecting your own partisan view of the world onto me. I'm very well aware that conservative policies can be very good for the country. Just because I'm saying that their CURRENT policies aren'tT good doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that I and they think that their CURRENT policies are good? And that Obama's proposed policies are bad? Can you understand that? Because it sure doesn't seem like it from what you've written in this thread.

Kindly make an effort to actually read what I'm posting.
Click to expand...

Oh, I have. The fact that it was not worth the effort is not my fault.
 
Argumemnon said:
I understand that this is your claim, yes.



See, this is another example that makes your claim hard to believe.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Suppose I restrict my claim to "I think current Republican policies are good for the country." And I do. Do you still think that claim is hard to believe?
 
BobTheCoward said:
Have you talked to a Republican? Zero out of Obama is better than him enacting anything.
Click to expand...


Obama doesn't enact anything. Approves? Maybe. But not enact.

That's what Congress does.

Or should be doing. Republicans have decided that doing their job was less important than trying to make Obama's presidency seem bad for the country.

If you don't realize that that is motivated out of a petty desire for short term political gain at the expense of the best interests of their constituents then you are seriously deluded.

This is something the Republican Party as a whole, on a national level, has made their guiding rule since January, 2009. This is sufficient evidence that they, as a party, are unfit for participation in governance.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Interesting. Suppose I restrict my claim to "I think current Republican policies are good for the country." And I do. Do you still think that claim is hard to believe?
Click to expand...

Let me put it this way: if you showed a bit less partisan leanings, it would be easier to accept said claim.

And before you try to mirror that back, remember than I'm not an American, so it's not like I'm a registered Democrat, though given the option, the GOP wouldn't be much of a choice, unfortunately. Personally I prefer to hesitate between several parties before voting.
 
sunmaster14 said:
After all this time, you still don't know what "begging the question" means. Yes, I believe the "least productive" (another example of "begging the question") Congress ever is good for America. Preventing bad policy from being enacted is probably better for the country than enacting good policy. It's like you're living in a bubble. Do you have any conception of what conservatism means?
Click to expand...


The Republicans couldn't care less if a policy was bad or good for the country if Obama supports it. They only care that Obama is not seen to be doing anything which might be considered good.

This has been clear from the inception of his Presidency. An idea considered good by Republicans because a Republican had it will instantly become a bad idea if Obama supports it.
 
Argumemnon said:
Do you really think that twisting my words counts as some sort of victory?
Click to expand...

There is no winner and loser in discussion. It is rewarding for everyone.

These pieces talk about good being truly different between the parties

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/15/6131919/democrats-and-republicans-really-are-different

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/13/10759874/republicans-democrats-different
If there was an executive summary it would be this

"the Republican Party is dominated by ideologues who are committed to small-government principles, while Democrats represent a coalition of social groups seeking public policies that favor their particular interests."
 
Argumemnon said:
Let me put it this way: if you showed a bit less partisan leanings, it would be easier to accept said claim.
Click to expand...

So you think I'm stating my views in bad faith. I'll note that this is not an infrequent accusation of yours, implicit or otherwise, which is probably why you end up in the middle of an awful lot of bickering. Perhaps you could explain what you think my motivation is for stating things that I don't really believe. Am I trying to win a popularity contest? Am I trying to annoy people? Remember, being wrong because of cognitive bias wouldn't explain it. Accepting my claim is not the same thing as accepting my beliefs or that I am in any way objective.

And before you try to mirror that back, remember than I'm not an American, so it's not like I'm a registered Democrat, though given the option, the GOP wouldn't be much of a choice, unfortunately. Personally I prefer to hesitate between several parties before voting.
Click to expand...

Your self-reported reputation for objectivity is noted.
 
BobTheCoward said:
There is no winner and loser in discussion. It is rewarding for everyone.
Click to expand...

I like your attitude here, but it seems in conflict with you using my use of the word "ideology" and equating it with someone else's use of it to score some sort of point.

The ideology I was refering to was their partisan ideology, not a political one.
 
sunmaster14 said:
So you think I'm stating my views in bad faith.
Click to expand...

I'm uncertain, as it stands.

I'll note that this is not an infrequent accusation of yours, implicit or otherwise
Click to expand...

I will further that this is not an infreqent accusation of pretty much anyone on this forum at some point.

Your self-reported reputation for objectivity is noted.
Click to expand...

Odd way to describe what I said, but then it's just one more example of your apparent need to disagree.
 
Argumemnon said:
I like your attitude here, but it seems in conflict with you using my use of the word "ideology" and equating it with someone else's use of it to score some sort of point.

The ideology I was refering to was their partisan ideology, not a political one.
Click to expand...

I think adhering to a small government ideology looks like a partisan ideology but isn't. Check out the articles though. Regardless if they inform this discussion they are really good.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I think adhering to a small government ideology looks like a partisan ideology but isn't. Check out the articles though. Regardless if they inform this discussion they are really good.
Click to expand...

The mask came off the GOP in 2012. They went into Obama's second term with the intention of obstructing him no matter what he did. It was not about what policy was best for the country. It was all about petty politics and making sure Obama's legacy was a bad one. Cons can attempt to deny this now, but it's public record.

The mask is off.
 
uke2se said:
The mask came off the GOP in 2012. They went into Obama's second term with the intention of obstructing him no matter what he did. It was not about what policy was best for the country. It was all about petty politics and making sure Obama's legacy was a bad one. Cons can attempt to deny this now, but it's public record.

The mask is off.
Click to expand...

What is a post tea party conservative policy Obama has put forth to have it be shut down by conservatives? If that was their goal they proved remarkably farseeing as the president's has acted in a manner I would say is almost entirely in opposition to post tea party conservatives.
 
Argumemnon said:
Maybe, but I don't see how what they're doing translates in small government. The GOP seems fine with big government when it fits their own needs.
Click to expand...

Before 2008 I would agree with you. Many of the backers of Bush style big government got hammered by the tea party. I need to reserve judgement of that axiom (they like their big government) until after the next Republican President to see if it sticks.

I expect trump to expose them for the racist authoritarians they are.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
What is a post tea party conservative policy Obama has put forth to have it be shut down by conservatives? If that was their goal they proved remarkably farseeing as the president's has acted in a manner I would say is almost entirely in opposition to post tea party conservatives.
Click to expand...

What's a post tea party conservative policy? What's the difference between a coservative policy and a conservative policy, pre- and post tea party?


As for the actual contents of my post, which you didn't comment on, as I said, that's a matter of public record. History, if you will.
 
B
uke2se said:
What's a post tea party conservative policy? What's the difference between a coservative policy and a conservative policy, pre- and post tea party?


As for the actual contents of my post, which you didn't comment on, as I said, that's a matter of public record. History, if you will.
Click to expand...

I was trying to think of a policy that fit. Obamacare was derived from the Romney plan. But that did come in an era that the tea party rejected. They rejected a lot of Bush era policy that was big government Republican (Medicare drugs, no child left behind, etc). They then got rid f a lot of incumbents that thought like it. Was anti obamacare movement hypocrisy or tea party conservatism?

You said it was about stopping obama rather than helping the country. But that means they would oppose a policy they supported if proposed by Obama. I'm trying to think up an example.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
B

I was trying to think of a policy that fit. Obamacare was derived from the Romney plan. But that did come in an era that the tea party rejected. They rejected a lot of Bush era policy that was big government Republican (Medicare drugs, no child left behind, etc). They then got rid f a lot of incumbents that thought like it. Was anti obamacare movement hypocrisy or tea party conservatism?

You said it was about stopping obama rather than helping the country. But that means they would oppose a policy they supported if proposed by Obama. I'm trying to think up an example.
Click to expand...

Everything.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ivity-congress-avoids-least-productive-title/

You must know that congress does more than hold votes to repeal the ACA. It should, at least. As it turns out, not much more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom