Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
I'd note that McCain (a good man, until he won the primary), by most measures, isn't even considered a member of the right wing.
If you're going to argue that the political elite ideologues and punditry who define the "Right" and drive the party platform are the vanguard of the mentally disabled then perhaps I've been watching a different channel.
Ok, perhaps my use of irony was overly sardonic for your tastes, which is fine, but to insult my wife's bona fides or assume (god forbid) that my post slipped through QA, all because of a little sarcasm, is a bit lame.
-spence
Thanks for clearing things up, Spence. I forgot that you like to change up your argument mid-discussion if the facts don't support it to fit the point you're trying to prove.
When you said Republican, I gave you an example of a Republican (McCain). I should have known that you only meant "right wing" Republicans. Please forgive me for not being able to read your mind.
Your wifes bona fides were never questioned by me. Sorry if you misinterpreted when I actually questioned you (and was pretty clear that it was you I was questioning). I'm sure your wife is very qualified just as any other employee who works in that field to have an opinion about politics.
By the way, did you read the SOSEA?
Conservatism is not about leaving people behind. Conservatism is about empowering people to catch up, to give them tools at their disposal that make it possible for them to access all the hope, all the promise, all the opportunity that America offers. - Marco Rubio
Thanks for clearing things up, Spence. I forgot that you like to change up your argument mid-discussion if the facts don't support it to fit the point you're trying to prove.
No, not at all.
My initial comment was calling out the "Right" as in the idiological leadership of the Right Wing, then asserted that there was a generalized policy difference that stemmed from this.
In an act of good faith I attempted to qualify my perhaps open ended sarcastic comment, but you seem to take this as an act of inconsistency.
If I have in any way led you to believe that I don't actually find irony in the intial post, then I'm deeply sorry for attempting to be reasonable. Perhaps I should have just told you to jam it and went offline?
Ultimately though, I find an argument about irony to be very ironic, don't you
If I was wrong about anything, it was assuming all the outrage would come from the Right, when in fact the outrage came from all sides.
Ultimately though, I find an argument about irony to be very ironic, don't you -spence
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
Perhaps I should have just told you to jam it and went offline?
Ultimately though, I find an argument about irony to be very ironic, don't you
If I was wrong about anything, it was assuming all the outrage would come from the Right, when in fact the outrage came from all sides.
Oh, and as for SOSEA, please enlighten us.
-spence
Good morning, Spence. If you went offline yesterday, my day would have been empty. And I love arguments about irony. I find them, well, ironic.
The reason I questioned you was because you originally made a blanket statement which was untrue. Then, you amended it and asked me to site examples without providing any of your own to support your argument.
While you can certainly find instances of cutbacks in funding by the Republicans, you might be suprised to find that the Democrats are guilty of the same things. They just try to blame it on the Republicans. Even you have to admit that there is a mindset among the public that all cuts to social services come from Republicans. It's a brilliant plan by the Democrats to keep themselves in office.
As for SOSEA, look up the bill. I'm pretty sure you're internet savy enough to do a google search on it. I shouldn't have to be the only one to actually provide facts to back up my statements.
Conservatism is not about leaving people behind. Conservatism is about empowering people to catch up, to give them tools at their disposal that make it possible for them to access all the hope, all the promise, all the opportunity that America offers. - Marco Rubio
That's shows just how easily it it to fall into this line of disabled jokes. We should all lighted up a little and tend to our raw nerves. It was just a joke, a tad offensive, but self depreciating. He apologized. Let's get back to the real issues, like the total disaster the world economy is in right now.
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine
That's shows just how easily it it to fall into this line of disabled jokes. We should all lighted up a little and tend to our raw nerves. It was just a joke, a tad offensive, but self depreciating. He apologized. Let's get back to the real issues, like the total disaster the world economy is in right now.
Good morning, Spence. If you went offline yesterday, my day would have been empty. And I love arguments about irony. I find them, well, ironic.
I'm glad to see you have some level of dependence.
Quote:
The reason I questioned you was because you originally made a blanket statement which was untrue. Then, you amended it and asked me to site examples without providing any of your own to support your argument.
Quite simply, too lazy and too busy on a Friday during work to make the effort.
Quote:
While you can certainly find instances of cutbacks in funding by the Republicans, you might be suprised to find that the Democrats are guilty of the same things. They just try to blame it on the Republicans. Even you have to admit that there is a mindset among the public that all cuts to social services come from Republicans. It's a brilliant plan by the Democrats to keep themselves in office.
There is perhaps some of this, but there's a idiological undercurrent to at play as well. Conservatives tend to believe that the Federal Government has no Constitutional justification to fund social programs, which end up funding a lot of programs for the mentally disabled. While State Governments have more freedom here, politically they are often constrained to sticking to the same platform, perhaps more now than ever. This certianly was true under Reagan, and even recently our own Gov. Carcieri attempted to slash state budgets for the developmentally disabled without any thought into the net business value of his actions. Considering he's a business man this surprised me quite a bit. That being said, I'm glad he considered it as an option as if you're going to reform, there can't be any sacred cows. He did eventually back down when the stupidity of his plan became appearant. I've read plenty of stories over the years, but again...to lazy to write a book about it.
RI actually has some very good programs for the developmentally disabled, and I don't credit a longstanding conservative state government for the value that it does deliver...granted, at a high cost. Religious and other community efforts add tremendous value and improve quality of life, but with some people needing 100K+ per year in state and federal aid, the till from the taxpayer ends up footing a lot of the bill.
While I'm sure there's examples of good and bad being done on both sides...at the top of either ends political elite though, I think there's a consistent message that's quite different, hence the irony.
Quote:
As for SOSEA, look up the bill. I'm pretty sure you're internet savy enough to do a google search on it. I shouldn't have to be the only one to actually provide facts to back up my statements.
Had I found it via Google I would have educated myself, found the weakness in your argument and posted as an expert in the subject asserting your error. Perhaps you don't have the acronym correct?
Hybrid Mode
