Are Republicans holding the US back?

[Condunum]

The reason we don't answer it is because it's an ideological trap. You're asking it so that you can use it as a soap box to preach your view while we sit laughing at your strawman arguments.

Dude, it is just a hypothetical philosophical question -- nothing more,nothing less.

Let me make it easy for you dude, I would easily choose prosperity in a hypothetical Marxist society over a less prosperous hypothetical capitalist society any day.

Now that wasn't too hard was it?

You think you can answer my 'ideological trap' question now ?

Or is it still too hard or threatening for you ?

Take your time, I will check in tomorrow.

Perhaps it isn't a trap, so I guess I'll throw away my paranoia. I'm kinda out of it anyway, sorry.

I would most certainly choose the second choice. Life can easily be improved in such a scenario.

[Dissant Machine Empire]

Yes, republicans and all their conservative buddies love to wish it was back in the colonial times when rich white christian men ruled everything. Too bad for them it's NEVA GONNA HAPPEN

[Die Oranje-Vrystaat]

Yes, republicans and all their conservative buddies love to wish it was back in the colonial times when rich white christian men ruled everything. Too bad for them it's NEVA GONNA HAPPEN

Yeah, because that's what we want.

[Lemanrussland]

Are you proud of yourself for being able to rush to a decision so quickly?

It takes a lot longer for a bullshitter or a liar to manufacture an answer to a simple question.

The libertarian world view is consistent, rational and sound -- hence they can answer a question very quickly without much deliberation.

As a conservative-libertarian there is more nuance and inconsistency in my worldview, hence it would take me a little longer to come up with an answer to some philosophical questions like the one issued above.

Lastly, progressives, socialists, Marxists, etc. bankrupt world view is utterly irrational and inconsistent on many levels that formulating an opinion or answer to a simple query like the one above is an exercise in angst and handwringing.

Really, I don't know what you're trying to prove here when you say they're "evading" your question. As others have said, it's a pigeonhole question, in which you're trying to either force them to agree with Communism, or a more moderate, ambiguous position. It's not really telling of anything when people object to your question as being a huge false dilemma fallacy (either accept my ideology or you're a Communist).

To answer your question, of course I would select a world in which there is inequality, but no poverty. I would however qualify that statement by saying that everyone deserves a minimum measure of opportunity in society, not just in the negative sense, but in the positive sense as well. To a libertarian, you're free if your negative liberties are protected, even if you're a starving, homeless orphan-child who can't read. I don't subscribe to that ideology, and find it to be just as disgusting as Communism. It's fundamentalist, and axiomatic to the point of non-thinking. Any time I read how simple it is to understand the world through system X, I know I'm dealing with a convert from evangelistic writings, and might as well be trying to have an intelligent discussion with a radical Islamic fundamentalist.

[Avenio]

Dude, it is just a hypothetical philosophical question -- nothing more,nothing less.

So why are you putting so much time and effort into beating us over the head with the notion that we're so morally bankrupt that we can't answer the question at all? I mean, if it were just a hypothetical, surely you'd be more interested in making it, well, mean something, rather than, as ASB pointed out (and which you ignored, and likely will continue to ignore), not have enough information to construct a suitable answer?

The other option, of course, is that you're not interested in rationality or coming to an objective, empirical consensus on the topic - but rather are driven by emotional, ideological impulses.

But that's not like you at all.

[Condunum]

Yes, republicans and all their conservative buddies love to wish it was back in the colonial times when rich white christian men ruled everything. Too bad for them it's NEVA GONNA HAPPEN

Yeah, because that's what we want.

If it isn't, you sure have a hard time showing that.

[Ensiferum]

Either are the Tea Party. Violent hooliganism at it's finest. Hell, they ensured that the doors were closed on the capitol, illegally, when Michigan passed Right to Work. If anything racist is too kind a word for them.

Oh yeah, OWS isn't a collection of hooligans.
When was the last time a Tea Party rally ended in this?

Not that far but they did destroy a worker's cart and tear down a tend. Pretty violent if anything.

[JuNii]

I say no. after all, with the current make up of the government, the Republicans only hold the senate, one third of the three governing bodies of the US.

so... with the issue of gay marriage, that had a chance to be passed before the republicans could gain the senate, what did the Dems do? did they push it forward?

the high spending that President Oblame-a seems to keep wanting to pin on the Bush Administration... Didn't he proclaim his job was to end all that on his first tirm? here it is on the second term and the Dems are still blaming the Reps. sorry, but right now, the 'previous administration' is now the Obama administration. I'm hearing that the Oblame-a health care reform is out of money... that they have to now raise taxes... something that the president swore he wouldn't have to do to fun the reform...

are the Republicans holding the US back? no, I call it on the incompetence of the Dems who apparently don't know what to do when they are in the driver's seat.

[Gauntleted Fist]

are the Republicans holding the US back? no, I call it on the incompetence of the Dems who apparently don't know what to do when they are in the driver's seat.

You say this, but then you are completely wrong in your post about the actual facts.

Like the Republicans not controlling the fucking Senate.

[Neutraligon]

are the Republicans holding the US back? no, I call it on the incompetence of the Dems who apparently don't know what to do when they are in the driver's seat.

You say this, but then you are completely wrong in your post about the actual facts.

Like the Republicans not controlling the fucking Senate.

...senate?

[The Black Forrest]

Are you proud of yourself for being able to rush to a decision so quickly?

It takes a lot longer for a bullshitter or a liar to manufacture an answer to a simple question.

Romney didn't have any problems firing off answers.

The libertarian world view is consistent, rational and sound -- hence they can answer a question very quickly without much deliberation.

you lost me at rational. Well I am sure there are rational ones out there. All the ones I meant are not and always seem to be angry.

As a conservative-libertarian there is more nuance and inconsistency in my worldview, hence it would take me a little longer to come up with an answer to some philosophical questions like the one issued above.

Didn't you just say the view was consistent.

Lastly, progressives, socialists, Marxists, etc. bankrupt world view is utterly irrational and inconsistent on many levels that formulating an opinion or answer to a simple query like the one above is an exercise in angst and handwringing.

Source.

[Grenartia]

Yes, republicans and all their conservative buddies love to wish it was back in the colonial times when rich white christian men ruled everything. Too bad for them it's NEVA GONNA HAPPEN

Yeah, because that's what we want.

That's what it looks like you want.

[Delator]

The definition of human rights is subjective. I, for one, do not consider the right to commit an indecent act an inviolable human right.

Human rights are subjective...but "decency" is not.

The word "decent", of course, being yours to define.

[JuNii]

are the Republicans holding the US back? no, I call it on the incompetence of the Dems who apparently don't know what to do when they are in the driver's seat.

You say this, but then you are completely wrong in your post about the actual facts.

Like the Republicans not controlling the fucking Senate.

I stand corrected. they control the House, not the Senate. any other errors?

[Esternial]

You say this, but then you are completely wrong in your post about the actual facts.

Like the Republicans not controlling the fucking Senate.

I stand corrected. they control the House, not the Senate. any other errors?

Maybe that part where it's all the Dems fault, since clearly it can't be both.

Egad! Perish the thought!

[Grenartia]

The definition of human rights is subjective. I, for one, do not consider the right to commit an indecent act an inviolable human right.

Human rights are subjective...but "decency" is not.

The word "decent", of course, being yours to define.

Never have I seen such an idiotic statement. Did it hurt when you wrote that??

I know, seriously. I'd like to see the justification for it being 'indecent'. I really would.

[JuNii]

I stand corrected. they control the House, not the Senate. any other errors?

Maybe that part where it's all the Dems fault, since clearly it can't be both.

Egad! Perish the thought!

of course it can't be both. after all, President Obama is saying it's the Republican's fault... and we all know that the President NEVER lies.

[Terraius]

You're wasting your time posting here, they outnumber us on Nation States.

And in real life.

I dislike the ultraconservative redneck camp as much as I hate liberal hippies, but really too be honest you dods about dead even 50-50.

I mean seriously, I can throw two stones and knock one of each on the ground. In my ideal world there is only one group of drones that I have to deal with, Instead I have the unfortunate pleasure of having to adapt too two massive groups at war with eachother every chance they have.

At least in other countries they have five or six parties competing for votes, in the US we only have 2 camps which is a formula basically begging for extremist polarization.

[Terraius]

Human rights are subjective

You say that, but I doubt if the police came kicking down your door with a search they subjectively deem appropriate you would not be inclined to agree.

Morality is certainly subjective to a degree. Human rights, however, are not. People have inalienable rights to life, liberty, freedom, the pursuit of happiness. This is not open to individual interpretation, and thank God, because idiots and tyrants alike would have messed that up already for us.

[Alien Space Bats]

[Really, I don't know what you're trying to prove here when you say they're "evading" your question. As others have said, it's a pigeonhole question, in which you're trying to either force them to agree with Communism, or a more moderate, ambiguous position.

Yeah, except that he totally fucks it up by failing to use the word "Communist" (or any of its analogs) in his hypothetical:

As a ___________ do you prefer a hypothetical society in which societal wealth is concentrated in this manner:

1% possess 99% of the wealth, the bottom 99% possess 1% of the wealth, but nobody is living in poverty.

or

1% possess only 2% of the wealth and the bottom 99% possess 98% of the wealth, but 10% of the citizenry live in poverty.

Choose which hypothetical society you prefer. Note that this is simply a philosophical test.

See? All we have are two societies, one with high income inequality but no poverty, the other one with low income inequality but poverty. He doesn't say shit about their laws or their respective socioeconomic systems or underlying philosphies (the equality in the second society could simply be due to a lack on any prior economic development).

So it's a pointless bullshit challenge with no correct answer.

[Ashmoria]

You say this, but then you are completely wrong in your post about the actual facts.

Like the Republicans not controlling the fucking Senate.

I stand corrected. they control the House, not the Senate. any other errors?

while i dont think that a repeal of DOMA was considered by the house in 09-11, if it HAD been considered and passd by the house it would have died in the senate just as 200+ other bills did due to the republicans holding the senate (and thus the US) back.

[Alien Space Bats]

Until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on DOMA and Prop 8, it's just not appropriate for Congress to consider any further legislation in this area. We really need to know what the rules are regarding same-sex marriage before proceeding any further at the Federal level.

That's one reason why I don't think this ought to be a major priority just yet.

[Ashmoria]

Until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on DOMA and Prop 8, it's just not appropriate for Congress to consider any further legislation in this area. We really need to know what the rules are regarding same-sex marriage before proceeding any further at the Federal level.

That's one reason why I don't think this ought to be a major priority just yet.

i agree but i think that junii was referring to the time when democrats controlled the house, senate and whitehouse and DOMA hadnt been brought to the court yet. the time when we pretend that the democrats could have passed everythng they wanted to pass.

[Obamacult]

[Really, I don't know what you're trying to prove here when you say they're "evading" your question. As others have said, it's a pigeonhole question, in which you're trying to either force them to agree with Communism, or a more moderate, ambiguous position.

Yeah, except that he totally fucks it up by failing to use the word "Communist" (or any of its analogs) in his hypothetical:

See? All we have are two societies, one with high income inequality but no poverty, the other one with low income inequality but poverty. He doesn't say shit about their laws or their respective socioeconomic systems or underlying philosphies (the equality in the second society could simply be due to a lack on any prior economic development).

So it's a pointless bullshit challenge with no correct answer.

See? All we have are two societies, one with high income inequality but no poverty, the other one with low income inequality but poverty. He doesn't say shit about their laws or their respective socioeconomic systems or underlying philosphies (the equality in the second society could simply be due to a lack on any prior economic development).

---

---

Let me make this extremely easy for you -- both societies are the same in every respect -- except one society has extreme inequality with no poverty and the other society has extreme equality with 10% poverty.

And it is noteworthy that you cannot/will not answer this simple challenge.

IMHO the progressive/socialist/Marxist ideology is faulty for many reasons -- not in the least its immoral use of enforcing its redistributive plunder and crony capitalism at the point of a gun. The ideology is fatally flawed in that it is grounded in jealousy and envy -- for example, it seeks to destroy the wealth of the rich, not to enhance the poor, but to bring the different 'classes' closer together in their misery.

And again, it is noteworthy that you cannot/will not answer this simple challenge, but I expected as much because most progressive realized that the dogma of equality over prosperity is irrational. Indeed, it is faith-based, not much different than Islamist dogma that rejects science for faith. Similarly, progressives reject economic facts, logic and empirical science for egalitarianism.

Hence, the ideologues who support this system would prefer poverty for some citizens in order to reduce the wealth of the rich and insure a more equal, if less prosperous, society.

Indeed, trotslyvania challenged me to provide proof that progressives place greater emphasis on egalitarianism over prosperity -- so I issued this challenge which has yet to be met by any self-described Marxist, progressive, socialist, etc.

Amusing and noteworthy to say the least.

[Nulono]

"Republicans" are not a monolithic entity. Some are holding the US back, and some aren't. The same goes for Democrats.

I will say I agree with Bobby Jindal that Republicans need to stop being the Stupid Party. Democracy only works if there's always a credible opposition party.

The same goes to Abortion.
Reading a thread five minutes before that had a "unreliable republican source" (Cough cough, guess...) that said that woman was 'nearly killed' after not given anesthetic for an abortion in a Planned Parenthood Clinic in some other US State, I saw right through this for what it really was:
An article of a small, over exaggerated event made exaggerated to make people angry.

How is someone dying a "small, over exaggerated event made exaggerated"?

Really now, there is little evidence to support the foetus as a 'living, thinking creature' the GOP and other like minded people make it out to be.

Has anyone ever claimed a fetus was a thinking being?

Really, it is half the mother's DNA, and half of the father's.

So are you and I.

A collection of Cells building and arranging themselves, preparing for Birth.

That's technically true, but biologically meaningless. You could just as easily say a toddler is a collection of cells preparing for puberty.

People asking "What if you were/going to be aborted! How would you feel!?"
This is how I always, forever will respond:

"I wouldn't be alive to complain."

If you were killed today, you wouldn't be alive tomorrow to complain. What's your point?

It just doesn't make sense to me.
Why (and HOW) Republicans are against Abortion.
If a women can't have a baby, as in can't afford it or cannot have it without medical problems, then shouldn't be allowed to 'opt' out?

She certainly shouldn't be allowed to "opt out" by killing the baby!

I mean, if a women is threatened by her pregnancy, is she not ENTITLED to have an abortion to save her life?
I can think of one recent case in Ireland where this has happened.
It could possibly happen in the United States.

Very few people are against life-saving abortions.

What if she's a rape victim?
How would the child grow up psychologically, knowing it was a rape child?
How would the child feel if they found this out on their own after a coverup since birth!?

So you're better off dead than knowing your father was a rapist?

How would the mother afford this child is she's POOR!?

Should a poor mother be allowed to kill her born children?