Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

But the U.S. isn't excessively taxed.

They are anti-tax in that they see tax increases (which is a reasonable thing) as unreasonable. They are anti-tax in that (as far as I know) they think taxes are currently too high (which is up for debate).

They are completely intolerant of the law and have no alternatives besides repealing it.

I said they are anti-"Obamacare," but they are more accurately described as anti–public healthcare

Tu quoque. How many (or few, I should say) liberals, anarchists, socialists, or libertarians support laws against abortion isn't the issue. The issue isn't about "encouraging abortion" (no matter how many redundant question marks you use). The issue is not about rape. The issue is about ensuring it remains a legal option for women who choose it within reasonable limits. People like Cruz and Palin want to remove these reasonable limits for religious reasons—in other words, they want to change laws based on religious claims rather than rational (i.e., medical or scientific) ones. That is the issue.

Saying that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married is anti-gay. Working actively and directly to pass or uphold laws preventing gay people from getting married is even more anti-gay. More broadly, it's an assault of civil liberties and human rights. It's authoritarianism.

"What is best for human society" is loving parents, including gay parents...who should be legally allowed to marry like any other set of parents.

I suppose you'd also support forced marriages upon single parents.

This isn't about Canada. As for Cruz and Palin, it's more about their stances and solutions than anything.

What about Cruz and Palin?

You are incorrect in assuming as much. Stick to what I wrote.

As for atheism being a religion, you should probably consider what a religion entails before you make such a broad claim.

It may be one indication, but it isn't a prerequisite. It isn't the case here. Read what I wrote more closely.

I've disagreed, but I'm not the one who mischaracterizes or demonizes. That's the realm of folks like Cruz and Palin. I tend to call a spade a spade.[/quote]

 

American history and the current federal deficit.

I simply look at the history of revenue as a % of GDP and then I compare it to other nations. I then have two data sets that give me my answer. I then bring into the equation the current deficit, consider the ramifications of changing spending and changing taxation, and then go from there.

What do you do? (This is a rhetorical question. It's more about what Palin and Cruz do.)

But we weren't talking about you, are we?

The viable unborn are very small percentage of the issue. Teenage rape victims aren't usually a part of the equation except as a "freebie," mostly coming from conservatives, though I wonder what they think about teenage rape victims carrying the viable unborn—if abortion is so wrong, then why have this exception?

But that's not the whole picture. We need to look at the big picture lest you appear to be an apologist for extremists.

Palin wants Roe v. Wade overturned. She also believes abortion should only be permitted where the life of the mother is endangered. This isn't a reasonable stance if you consider the science on the matter. It's an extreme position.

From what I can glean of Cruz's stance, he supports banning abortions at the beginning of the 6th month. While this is better than Palin's stance, it would make more sense to push this to the 24th week, which is when viability is reasonably possible or likely, and it is also when the fetus will develop the capacity for pain. So I suppose I mean to say that Cruz almost gets a pass from me. You may ask, "What's two weeks?" Well, Cruz opposes public funding for abortion, so two weeks matters when finances are an issue for the woman.

Again, we're not talking about you here. We're talking about Cruz and Palin.

Gay parents have a very special role in the lives of their children too. I don't think that's difficult to understand. Thousands of gay parents around the world do this. I think this is something Cruz and Palin probably don't get. Is this something you don't get? Do you think gay relationships are harmful to children or something? Is this a moral issue? Are you saying you are okay with gay people getting married, but they shouldn't have children? What should the law dictate? What do Cruz and Palin say on the matter?

I would say that preventing gay marriage does more harm to children than does permitting it. If you question this, ask yourself whether banning all marriage would harm children, and then shift your focus back to gay parents.

If you have the opportunity, since I know you like talking to people one-on-one to get their positions on matters, try asking teenaged or young adult children of gay parents what they think about laws barring their parents from getting married. My guess is that they'd feel pretty angry about laws that marginalize their family. They have friends whose hetero parents are okay being married, but their own family is marriage-less, not because a lack of love or the desire to be wed, but because they aren't "normal enough" and such a familial bond is literally illegal. What a way to make a kid feel shitty.

It's a secular contract, which is why having laws against same-sex marriage is discriminatory.

I don't believe in fairies. Is that a religion too? I don't believe in magic either. Is that another one? I don't think there is such thing as a Bandersnatch. Do you know of any houses of unworship for my disbelief in a Bandersnatch?

Do you know of any groups trying to force your kid's school to make the students recite daily a nonsense poem about their collective disbelief in a Bandersnatch? Either way, what do you think of the idea?

Perhaps it was (or perhaps it wasn't) brought to you by the Nonexistent Non-Holy Unchurch Not for or Against (Due to the Impossibility to Hold a Position Either Way) a Disbelief of (or Simple Indifference Regarding, or, for That Matter, a Complete Ignorance of) a Bandersnatch.

 

Excellent stuff...yes, this is what I'm talking about.
It's all smoke & mirrors...theater.
Nothing substantive or fact based.

You know, they keep saying when is Obama going to "lead".
But when are the rest of our leaders going to "lead"?

This would be like asking the Quarterback to drive the game...while all the rest of the players, ran randomly...and caused tons of penalties.
Tons of divas...lack of game-makers.

When are they going to think about the nation?
When are they going to think about the citizens?
Not just posturing.

 

Article after article out there, lambasting the insanity.
With logic, reality, cynicism and sarcasm.

• Conservatism meets Occupy Wall Street
• Government shutdown unleashes racism
• A tea party purge among the GOP

Each showing how the GOP is tearing itself apart...history repeating itself, empires & parties fall.
The corruption eats from within.

My only question is...how much damage will the surrounding areas have, when the volcano explodes???

Gotta love the jokes in the middle one, beginning & end...

 

If you look at tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, you will note that the current rate is rather normal when averaged out over the past several decades. More specifically, it's a bit low compared to some previous periods throughout that time. Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP basically indicates how much money in taxes are collected as a proportion of economic activity generated by the economy. In other words, America currently is not excessively taxed unless you think America has been excessively taxed since before the Depression. You'd also have to overlook the current deficit and debt load, which are quite burdensome at the moment, historically speaking. Bearing that in mind, in addition to what's a fairly normal current tax burden (overall), it becomes quite clear that America is not, in fact, excessively taxed. This is a reasonable position given the data. To disagree would likely require a radical or otherwise extreme rationale.

Then I realize that deep cuts create an environment of damaging austerity (simply look at Europe as why that's bad).

So when the likes of Cruz and Palin whip a crowd up into a frenzy about how taxes should be cut, blah, blah, blah, and spending should be slashed, blah, blah, blah, I tend to take issue with it as someone who knows better.

Spending should be controlled reasonably to avoid economic shocks, and taxes should be readdressed to consider additional revenues. Anything else doesn't, in my view, take the deficit seriously.

Now we're focusing on issues that are irrelevant to our topic. We need merely end with "Palin takes an extreme religious position on abortion in that she supports state authoritarianism on the matter despite evidence suggesting it's not warranted." As I've said, Cruz almost gets a pass, unless his position changes for the worse.

Where have I done that? It's not my intent, nor my goal. Don't take my points personally; simply address them as they are. I'm talking about the views of Cruz and Palin specifically.

I don't know your position, so I can't comment on it. Palin's position is that she wants to overturn it based on a religious argument. That in itself is a problem, and she shouldn't be taken seriously.

Because that's the topic we're talking about? I don't know what else to say. I said something in response to a news piece about Palin and Cruz, and you took issue with what I said about them, and now you're wondering why we're talking about them instead of you?

Why indeed.

Palin and Cruz are against gay marriage. You aren't.

This is another topic entirely, so I won't comment on it. I commented on gay marriage, not the immoral attacks on the legitimization of gay parenting.

The problem is that there are laws preventing people from getting married. Whether you think it's a religious issue or a civil issue is beside the point. Palin and Cruz, as far as I know, support laws preventing couples from getting married based on their sexual orientation. Period. You don't have an issue with the practice. Fine. Again, this is about Palin and Cruz.

My point is that Palin and Cruz likely argue purely from a religious standpoint on what is essentially a secular issue: the regulatory laws regarding marriage. They want the government to have laws defining marriage in such a way that is discriminatory. That is wrong on more than one level.

Perhaps we should avoid it. All I will say is that religion comprises a belief in (and usually the worship of) a superhuman controlling power—"superhuman," meaning a being (or beings) with extraordinary powers.

The latter thing you describe—a collection of beliefs as it relates to human existence— is more philosophy than religion.

I only tend to have a problem with religion when it negatively influences secular matters. For example, laws based on religion that have an inadequate (or no) basis in reason or logic, and that lack evidence or have no basis in reality, are immoral.

 

I think it's worth talking about the economic damage this caused (especially since many Americans seem to have short memories). As I mentioned not too long ago, Republicans have been damaging to the financial health of the nation for a while now. Here, Krugman points out some specifics dating at least back to 2010: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/what-a-drag-2/?smid=pl-share

 

I think you mean to say that the indexes have returned to the level they reached this time a month ago. If Wall St. (and elsewhere) is an indicator, it's little more than a case of "restored faith" in the status quo. It's a response to the GOP's capitulation.

The stunt the GOP pulled still had a multibillion-dollar price tag.

I sense that you are regarding certain features that atheists may or may not share as features that are religious.

Perhaps this is due to the misconception that religion has a monopoly on morality.

A pattern of consistency regarding moral issues does not necessarily constitute a religion. If there were the case, an argument could be made that there is only one religion: humanism. That's a loaded phrase when you consider all the aspects of it.

For the record, it's not a statement I would argue.

 

This pretty much sums up the Shutdown.

 

“[Under] thousands of things I’ve written, yeah, there are times when they’ve been sloppy or not correct or we’ve made an error. But the difference is I take it as an insult, and I will not lie down and say people can call me dishonest, misleading or misrepresenting. I have never intentionally done so.​

​

“And like I say, if – you know, if dueling were legal in Kentucky, if they keep it up, you know, it’d be a duel challenge. But I can’t do that because I can’t hold office in Kentucky then.”​

​

—Senator Rand Paul on being called out on multiple counts of plagiarism​

Rand Paul: 'If dueling were legal in Kentucky...' | MSNBC

 

Oh yes, because that worked out so well for Alexander Hamilton... (or Aaron Burr, who won)
Hasn't he studied his American history??

 

I find it particularly bizarre that he defaulted to an outmoded sense of honour in this case. He regards this as an undue assault on his character rather than a problem with his intellectual honesty (which seems to be obvious at this point).

He was called out, and now he's playing the victim.

Rather than actually deal with the accusations themselves, he'd rather attack his critics. But physically?