Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Yeah, I'm not really digging this one and am bored with it.
Ron Paul wins California straw poll
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
Yeah, I'm not really digging this one and am bored with it.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I am not good at multiquoting so I can just hit it here:
2nd Amendment - I believe that guns are the right of the individual, within reason. I think we have enough regulation of guns, and I think there needs to be solid punishment connected to laws governing gun ownership, and criminal use of guns. I would approve of measures that would exact a greater punishment if a gun is used in a crime, regardless of the crime. But I also would not support legislation that restricts or invalidates the 2nd amendment. Doing some research, this is actually very close to the Democratic stance on the 2nd amendment. See https://www.blueoregon.com/2005/07/the_right_to_ke/ for an example. This is pretty close to how I feel on the subject, in broad terms.
Abortion policy - I am not pro-life, I am not pro-choice. I believe there is middle ground to be had. In this case I guess I do lean more to the right since I am against what I would term "recreational" abortions, but I recognize there are times when it would be not only appropriate but potentially necessary. Are you of the Kang camp (simpsons) "abortions for all"? Is it ok to limit, restrict, or ban something like this? Those are the big points of debate. Democrats say no, no matter what, republicans say yes, no matter what.
Term limits - I think career politicians grow out of touch with their consituency. I would like to see some kind of limits imposed at the top levels. The presidency is limited, would you like to repeal that? Would you have liked another 8 years of Reagan? This belief is not unheard of in Democratic circles either. There are of course risks associated with term limits, such as the potential that lobbyists will gain a stronger hand with inexperienced politicians. Also there is the argument that we should be able to vote in our leaders without restrictions, as that is the democratic way. I think both of these are valid concerns, among others, which makes it a hotly debated topic. But my personal opinion is that the potential benefits outwiegh the potential risks.
Financial crises (national debt, bail-outs, etc.) - so you think the bailouts of the banks, et al, was a fantastic idea and has reaped nothing but reward? If not maybe you *gasp* agree with the "tea party" as well. I think the bailouts were a gargantuan mistake. It did nothing but reinforce the fact that those institutions will never be held accountable and corruption and destruction at their hand will continue. I think it would have been better for us long-term to let those institutions fail. Short-term would have been hellish, but it is debatable if it would be worse than we are right now. If you are going to bail them out, then go all the way and institute a state-bank that supplants the others entirely. But to simply hand them the money, with no real regulation with any teeth beyond what was already in place (other than new rules such as making it harder to get a mortgage, which was needed a long time ago) was foolish in the extreme.
Taxes on the rich - Fact: the top 5% of wage-earners pay most of the income taxes collected in the country. This can not be disputed. From a raw numbers stand-point, the rich pay the most. Period. Many many low-income households pay, effectively, no income tax at all. But the group that carries the brunt of the tax burden, in terms of percentages, is the middle to upper middle class (which I have stated in the past, is the group I fit in). I have stated that I am for a fair flat tax plan, or something that spreads the burden out more equitably, but I get tired of the constant rhetoric that the only issue is that the rich don't pay enough. Please, to boil it down that simply and deny all the other problems inherent in our tax code is ludicrous. It is not, and will never be, as simple as "ok, you make lots of money, you pay half of it....you don't, so here we will give you money instead". I think Obama's most recent deficit plan is the closest approximation to veiwing the situation realistically we have seen in a long time from either side.
Health care – I haven’t liked any of the healthcare plans presented yet. So sure I (largely) agreed with the republican view that Obamacare was not what we needed. Nothing any better has been presented yet, imo, but it doesn’t mean we should simply take what is there because there is nothing else. If you loved it, good for you, we can disagree, and I applaud you for sticking to the party-line instead of thinking about the impact it could have on regular ordinary people. As someone who has relied a LOT on healthcare in the course of my life, I do not take it lightly. As an aside, notice how this fell off the radar as the political needle swings to economy and re-election. The economy is a much stronger election point than healthcare so none of them will touch it until it is brought up during debates.
Obama = Nero – I fully admit to moderately trolling on the bus thread. I truly thought it absurd to spend a million on a bus in essence just to campaign in. I would have thought it just as absurd if Bush had done it or anyone else. I used the Nero thing since it was relatively close to the other Nero thread (as in timing), so it was a form of alliteration, and I knew it would spur some kind of discussion better than simply “Obama buys a bus”. Care to point out the evidence that I “bought into” it, other than a single obviously sarcastic thread? By the way, if you read the Nero thread I (marginally) defend Obama more than I do jump on the Nero bandwagon. In fact I spend much more time in that thread discussing Nero and Caligula than Obama.
So there you have it, in broad terms and nutshells. What you get on internet forums are mostly rebuttals and defenses, and occasionally the fun of arguing things you may not fully believe, or of taking a stronger stance than you really feel, but that is a good way to look at your own beliefs anyway, arguing the other side.
Care to reveal your beliefs regarding these issues and why you dodge the “liberal” label while continually talking like one?
Oh and your attempt to insult cheese will not go unnoticed. This cheese aggression will not stand, man.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
No they don't.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
First, hyperbole to make a point about the polar differences. Obviously not everyone in every ideology believes everything the exact same way.
Second, context (rephrasing): Republicans say it is ok to restrict, limit, or ban abortions. Are you saying republicans do NOT think it is ok to restrict, limit, or ban abortions? When did the party-line change?
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/world/americas/31iht-31abortion.15764422.html
https://ontheissues.org/Archive/2004_GOP_Platform_Abortion.htm
I'll hit this in shortish chunks (this may be a challenge for me as I'm generally verbose and I may break this promise in some areas. Right off the top, I'll take this one:
Not certain where you've gotten the idea that I deny being liberal. In the post you're quoting I say that I'll cop to being a liberal. I'll do you one better and say that I'm a progressive liberal and almost assuredly someone that Millsapa would call a socialist.
That is almost verbatim the GOP stance on gun control. You are, in essence, saying that you don't support any more limits on firearms (i.e. "I think we have enough regulation of guns.") That's been the position of the GOP as they've repeatedly blocked items like the reenactment of the assault weapons ban. The "tough on crime" semi-compromise you push is farther up the proto-conservative path.
You're linking to a state party platform which is a pretty dangerous way to do business when you're talking about a political party's beliefs. I could use the same tactic using only Iowa and Texas' GOP party platforms to argue that the GOP largely advocates abolishing the IRS, teach creationism in schools, allow children to carry guns to school, repeal all minimum wage laws, and in very specific classifications of manure.
The national Democratic party is the party of the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.
Here's a quick test: Do you believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a gun? Where does your answer put you on the political spectrum.
And since you asked, my second amendment beliefs are not particularly strong but I support virtually all gun restrictions that I'm aware of.
You've acknowledged you're a right-leaner on the issue so I don't need to go farther. I will say that we've already fought previously over the term "recreational abortion." I'm in favor of a balanced approach along the lines of a viability test.
I do think you're framing the two parties positions as overly polarized on this point. Few pro-life GOP members, especially at the national level, will individually say (notwithstanding the "official GOP platform") that abortion should be illegal in instances such as rape or life endangerment of the mother. Very few (to my knowledge, none) Democrats will argue that abortion is appropriate on the 30th day of the 8th month. Given that, to my recollection, the "middle ground" you're referring to are the generally recognized exceptions by even GOP members I think this is a place where you're assigning yourself independence where you're really essentially a party-line conservative.
Advocacy of term limits is generally associated with the GOP. GOP Senators introduced that as a Constitutional Amendment less than three years ago and many GOP leaders over the last 20 years have taken voluntary term limits pledges (many of which were broken, but that's another story). Again, this is an area of lean for you that we've identified.
Here I don't think it matters much either way. I do think it is helpful to have certain old hands in the government that are very familiar with how to operate the machinery as well as long-timers that can attempt to moderate the passions of the times. I'm against them, but not strongly so.
Here you're once again acknowledging that you support the Tea Party position so I don't think you're fighting me on "rightward lean" either.
In my mind, we should have nationalized portions of the banking industry during the crisis to save the system while ensuring we received a solid stake for our cash. You waffle on this point some, but I suspect you'd prefer we had just let them fail. In fact, you've said as much in other posts.
Up until the final sentence this is effectively the GOP line of tax burdens on the wealthy, including Fair Flat Tax (which is supported by a very vocal GOP segment). Again, you're not exactly fighting me here.
I think the situation is more complicated than you describe, especially once you account for payroll as well as income taxes, and that the rich presently enjoy the lowest tax rates that virtually anyone living has ever seen in this country. I support significant increases in the degree to which the tax scheme is progressive. That is against my present financial interest.
In previous posts you have blamed government interference in health care for many of the problems with the system. That's what I was referring to and that's a parrot of GOP politics.
I was disappointed in Obamacare because it coddled the insurance companies. I was and am for a single payer system.
If you say you were being sarcastic that's fine.
So we have it this way, we grouped the issues into six core points plus Nero. On two (abortion and bank bailouts) you flat acknowledge you lean right. On two more (term limits and taxes) you don't acknowlege it but then repeat virtually verbatim right wing points as your stance. One another (guns) you state the right's point of view but then claim it's the Dems position based upon an Oregon state party platform. And on the last one (health care) you land in the "I didn't like any plans" zone but have a prior record that indicates rightward lean.
Would you still claim that you are truly independent rather than an effective conservative who refuses to identify with a party?
Not certain where you've gotten the idea that I deny being liberal. In the post you're quoting I say that I'll cop to being a liberal. I'll do you one better and say that I'm a progressive liberal and almost assuredly someone that Millsapa would call a socialist.
That is almost verbatim the GOP stance on gun control. You are, in essence, saying that you don't support any more limits on firearms (i.e. "I think we have enough regulation of guns.") That's been the position of the GOP as they've repeatedly blocked items like the reenactment of the assault weapons ban. The "tough on crime" semi-compromise you push is farther up the proto-conservative path.
You're linking to a state party platform which is a pretty dangerous way to do business when you're talking about a political party's beliefs. I could use the same tactic using only Iowa and Texas' GOP party platforms to argue that the GOP largely advocates abolishing the IRS, teach creationism in schools, allow children to carry guns to school, repeal all minimum wage laws, and in very specific classifications of manure.
The national Democratic party is the party of the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.
Here's a quick test: Do you believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a gun? Where does your answer put you on the political spectrum.
And since you asked, my second amendment beliefs are not particularly strong but I support virtually all gun restrictions that I'm aware of.
You've acknowledged you're a right-leaner on the issue so I don't need to go farther. I will say that we've already fought previously over the term "recreational abortion." I'm in favor of a balanced approach along the lines of a viability test.
I do think you're framing the two parties positions as overly polarized on this point. Few pro-life GOP members, especially at the national level, will individually say (notwithstanding the "official GOP platform") that abortion should be illegal in instances such as rape or life endangerment of the mother. Very few (to my knowledge, none) Democrats will argue that abortion is appropriate on the 30th day of the 8th month. Given that, to my recollection, the "middle ground" you're referring to are the generally recognized exceptions by even GOP members I think this is a place where you're assigning yourself independence where you're really essentially a party-line conservative.
Advocacy of term limits is generally associated with the GOP. GOP Senators introduced that as a Constitutional Amendment less than three years ago and many GOP leaders over the last 20 years have taken voluntary term limits pledges (many of which were broken, but that's another story). Again, this is an area of lean for you that we've identified.
Here I don't think it matters much either way. I do think it is helpful to have certain old hands in the government that are very familiar with how to operate the machinery as well as long-timers that can attempt to moderate the passions of the times. I'm against them, but not strongly so.
Here you're once again acknowledging that you support the Tea Party position so I don't think you're fighting me on "rightward lean" either.
In my mind, we should have nationalized portions of the banking industry during the crisis to save the system while ensuring we received a solid stake for our cash. You waffle on this point some, but I suspect you'd prefer we had just let them fail. In fact, you've said as much in other posts.
Up until the final sentence this is effectively the GOP line of tax burdens on the wealthy, including Fair Flat Tax (which is supported by a very vocal GOP segment). Again, you're not exactly fighting me here.
I think the situation is more complicated than you describe, especially once you account for payroll as well as income taxes, and that the rich presently enjoy the lowest tax rates that virtually anyone living has ever seen in this country. I support significant increases in the degree to which the tax scheme is progressive. That is against my present financial interest.
In previous posts you have blamed government interference in health care for many of the problems with the system. That's what I was referring to and that's a parrot of GOP politics.
I was disappointed in Obamacare because it coddled the insurance companies. I was and am for a single payer system.
If you say you were being sarcastic that's fine.
So we have it this way, we grouped the issues into six core points plus Nero. On two (abortion and bank bailouts) you flat acknowledge you lean right. On two more (term limits and taxes) you don't acknowlege it but then repeat virtually verbatim right wing points as your stance. One another (guns) you state the right's point of view but then claim it's the Dems position based upon an Oregon state party platform. And on the last one (health care) you land in the "I didn't like any plans" zone but have a prior record that indicates rightward lean.
Would you still claim that you are truly independent rather than an effective conservative who refuses to identify with a party?
Since I saw you stated above that the GOP doesn't support exemptions for rape or the life of the mother I'm linking to the positions of the last several GOP presidents and candidates on the issue.
McCain: "McCain said, adding that he opposed abortion except in cases of rape and incest. He was then asked how he would determine whether someone had in fact been raped. McCain responded, “I think that I would give the benefit of the doubt to the person who alleges that.” https://www.ontheissues.org/senate/john_Mccain_abortion.htm
Bush II: Pro life with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother Source: GeorgeWBush.com: ‘Issues: Policy Points Overview’ Apr 2, 2000
Dole: "Sen. Bob Dole's assertion this week that he "would not do it again" -- that he would favor exceptions in an anti-abortion amendment for rape, incest or if the mother's life is at risk -- offers the Republicans escape from a dilemma of their own making." https://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-12-21/news/1995355111_1_abortion-human-life-amendment-dole
Bush I: Also supported exemptions. Source: The Abortion Debate: Understanding the Issues.
That's 20 years worth of presidential candidates. I don't think it's all that easy to claim that you're skewing far from the GOP if that's your basis for differentiation.
McCain: "McCain said, adding that he opposed abortion except in cases of rape and incest. He was then asked how he would determine whether someone had in fact been raped. McCain responded, “I think that I would give the benefit of the doubt to the person who alleges that.” https://www.ontheissues.org/senate/john_Mccain_abortion.htm
Bush II: Pro life with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother Source: GeorgeWBush.com: ‘Issues: Policy Points Overview’ Apr 2, 2000
Dole: "Sen. Bob Dole's assertion this week that he "would not do it again" -- that he would favor exceptions in an anti-abortion amendment for rape, incest or if the mother's life is at risk -- offers the Republicans escape from a dilemma of their own making." https://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-12-21/news/1995355111_1_abortion-human-life-amendment-dole
Bush I: Also supported exemptions. Source: The Abortion Debate: Understanding the Issues.
That's 20 years worth of presidential candidates. I don't think it's all that easy to claim that you're skewing far from the GOP if that's your basis for differentiation.
I don't quite get what you're proving here.
It's like when people insist that I am actually LDS even though I have chosen not to be.
The guy says he's independent, it's not really a big deal to link him to the GOP is it? Couldn't we just take him at his word that he doesn't get his opinions spoon fed to him from the GOP?
It's like when people insist that I am actually LDS even though I have chosen not to be.
The guy says he's independent, it's not really a big deal to link him to the GOP is it? Couldn't we just take him at his word that he doesn't get his opinions spoon fed to him from the GOP?
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
If you notice, I listed what the published PARTY stances were whenever possible, and made clear in another post that not everyone in a given party is always going to believe exactly everything that party publishes. I also fully conceded that most topics are more complex than what we can put into a single paragraph. Yet you use the argument that it is more complex than I am explaining against me. Interesting.
Among other comments, here is the evidence. I actually espouse a very democratic line in terms of gun control, and even link to a democratic site showing the similarities to an official party platform, and you post this:
So I guess the GOP and the Democrats believe the exact same thing, since I linked to an ACTUAL verbatim democratic response on gun control, but what I stated was apparently, to your very republican-trained eye, verbatim GOP. Thanks for clearing that up. Plus your rebuttals are single lines designed to not really show what you think, but to pick a single point as contrast to try to prove everything else is the way you say it is. It is obvious you practice obfuscation regularly.
Since you have moved into minutia, ignoring what is actually being said and simply grasping at straws, examining those trees intently while ignoring the forest, in the hopes of winning the argument at all costs, then I happily concede. Frankly winning the internet argument is more important to you than me. You caught me. I am really the republican mascot. I bleed red (see what I did there?). I have an elephant tattooed on my ***. I cried the day Reagan died. I voted for every republican who ever ran...twice, even those who ran before I was born. You are officially an internet tough guy.
I have to mirror Gameface's question. I find it funny that you get so worked up that I can actually hold an opinion that is against democratic dogma without fully embracing every facet of the republican party. I have been both a registered democrat and republican at different points in my life. Politics change. Situations, both personal and public, change. New evidence is uncovered and issues evolve. I am the very most afraid of the politician who in essence says "I voted this way in 1974 and will always vote this way all the way to 2074", since it shows they are capable of neither introspection nor critical thought. There are precious few issues that should fall in that category, imo, yet some people feel the burning need to categorize people accordingly.
As I said, if you ever come to Reno and want to go to lunch and dicuss any issue you would like in a personal way, where we could really get into it, I would welcome it. But I have no need to continually prove myself to you, at least not the same need you have to label. I don't mind getting into the discussions from time to time, usually it is fun, but you are constantly on the offensive. Are you a little insecure in your stances? Just wondering.
So since you seem so intent on labeling me, then you win, I am Republican Joe. Make sure you let your drinking buddies know that you put some random guy on the intenet, whom you don't know and have never met, in his place. They will surely be impressed.
Among other comments, here is the evidence. I actually espouse a very democratic line in terms of gun control, and even link to a democratic site showing the similarities to an official party platform, and you post this:
So I guess the GOP and the Democrats believe the exact same thing, since I linked to an ACTUAL verbatim democratic response on gun control, but what I stated was apparently, to your very republican-trained eye, verbatim GOP. Thanks for clearing that up. Plus your rebuttals are single lines designed to not really show what you think, but to pick a single point as contrast to try to prove everything else is the way you say it is. It is obvious you practice obfuscation regularly.
Since you have moved into minutia, ignoring what is actually being said and simply grasping at straws, examining those trees intently while ignoring the forest, in the hopes of winning the argument at all costs, then I happily concede. Frankly winning the internet argument is more important to you than me. You caught me. I am really the republican mascot. I bleed red (see what I did there?). I have an elephant tattooed on my ***. I cried the day Reagan died. I voted for every republican who ever ran...twice, even those who ran before I was born. You are officially an internet tough guy.
I have to mirror Gameface's question. I find it funny that you get so worked up that I can actually hold an opinion that is against democratic dogma without fully embracing every facet of the republican party. I have been both a registered democrat and republican at different points in my life. Politics change. Situations, both personal and public, change. New evidence is uncovered and issues evolve. I am the very most afraid of the politician who in essence says "I voted this way in 1974 and will always vote this way all the way to 2074", since it shows they are capable of neither introspection nor critical thought. There are precious few issues that should fall in that category, imo, yet some people feel the burning need to categorize people accordingly.
As I said, if you ever come to Reno and want to go to lunch and dicuss any issue you would like in a personal way, where we could really get into it, I would welcome it. But I have no need to continually prove myself to you, at least not the same need you have to label. I don't mind getting into the discussions from time to time, usually it is fun, but you are constantly on the offensive. Are you a little insecure in your stances? Just wondering.
So since you seem so intent on labeling me, then you win, I am Republican Joe. Make sure you let your drinking buddies know that you put some random guy on the intenet, whom you don't know and have never met, in his place. They will surely be impressed.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
That's hot!
Just think if you were a Democrat (pretending to be an independent) you would have an *** tattooed on your ***.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I was kinda being facetious. You could take it a few different ways
You: Republicans say yes, no matter what
Me: No they don't
Oh never mind...
But I always thought that the Republican stance was supportive of the usual exceptions until you posted their written platform just now.
To be honest I just thought it was ridiculous for him to even attempt to argue that he's a centrist in any meaningful way. It wouldn't matter if he didn't so frequently rail about "lesser of two evils" and about how awful both parties are etc etc. If you're going to repeatedly play the "I have no political loyalties" card , especially as a sign of implied moral strength (you'll note that one of his primary defense mechanisms is to assert that he's above the fray because people who acknowledge their part of a party believe their party is infallible), the legitimacy of that card is validly questionable. I'm calling ******** on that card.
i.e. A single time. Great research there. I'm in awe.
You also apparently didn't read what I wrote about state party platforms above or you'd recognize that I've already handled this. It's simply not a reasonable interpretation any more than the national GOP wants to be associated with the Iowa GOP's 2010 platform. There is only a single line in the 2008 national Democratic party platform re: gun control and it relates to the reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban. Apparently "national vs. local" is too much detail.
Great job omitting everything I wrote about why your link wasn't evidence of the national position.
The only statement in the national party platform relates to the assault weapons ban. Do you support its reinstatement?
Actually, demanding I write out my positions is obfuscation on your part. This started because I challenged the notion that you were really independent. That is a question about the right/left balance of your political beliefs. What I believe is wholly irrelevant to the question. I included a line about each because you asked me to, but it was truly out of courtesy only, hence the perfunctory treatment.
Ad hominem response since you can't actually deny the parallels. Confronting the myths we make about ourselves is difficult. Sorry for holding up the mirror.
Kicky, you look at everything as a dedicated card-carrying "progressive" would. to some that's looking at the world though a rosy set of optics. Just taking up this sort of proof against the objectivity of folks claiming to be "centrist" or independent makes you look nuts.
That's what's generally wrong with "progressives" nowadays, they really have abandoned the original meaning of the world "liberal" and just can't leave other folks alone. That probably goes a long way towards explaining why most folks are getting fed up if not PO'd at phony "liberals" who continue to push for more and more "government" solutions to everything.
Along that line, it would definitely be smart of you if you did change your handle.
I'm voting for Ron Paul every time he's on the ballot, for life. A politician who can hold a conscientious stand for personal rights and oppose unconstitutional grandiose schemes for fixing the world outta Washington DC deserves our votes.
That's what's generally wrong with "progressives" nowadays, they really have abandoned the original meaning of the world "liberal" and just can't leave other folks alone. That probably goes a long way towards explaining why most folks are getting fed up if not PO'd at phony "liberals" who continue to push for more and more "government" solutions to everything.
Along that line, it would definitely be smart of you if you did change your handle.
I'm voting for Ron Paul every time he's on the ballot, for life. A politician who can hold a conscientious stand for personal rights and oppose unconstitutional grandiose schemes for fixing the world outta Washington DC deserves our votes.