Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure, but the principal reason--you're "killing" potential humans--isn't a slippery slope. You're already at that moral position, and simply defending it in new ways.

So, I think the homily you're looking for is
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

Potential vs. walking and talking humans.

No debate to me at all. From a logical standpoint, what might be never outweighs aiding what's here and now. But I guess I'm a filthy moral relativist for that...

I see the real breakdown in most of these debates as logic v. faith. Faith is a scary currency. You need it to get by, but the damage it does is so immense. I think we've a huge glut of moral certainty in this country. A little faith arbitrage with Europe would help us greatly.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I have heard this said before and I don't agree. Just because 100,000 people believe something does not mean it is a valid viewpoint which may be used as rebuttal against science.

I don't see anyone rebutting science. They're simply saying that morals should be considered in the application of science.

I really don't understand when it religion rose to the level of scientific proof.

It's less of a religious issue than a moral one. I know several atheists who oppose abortion. "Stealing is bad" is a moral belief, and can be asserted to stop someone from stealing other people's research, even when it might help their own research, yet you don't hold up the "stealing is bad" viewpoint as representing someone's religious beliefs being allowed to trump your own desires. And your comment about scientific proof is misaimed. No one is trying to prove anything by asserting these positions. They are simply setting out their moral beliefs. Surely you're not saying that we have to ignore moral beliefs as we guide our lives? I think you're actually saying that you don't hold those same moral beliefs, and that thus those other people must be wrong.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually, his article is arguing for zero taxes. He says that all redistribution through governmental coercion is morally the equivalent of slavery. He makes no distinction or allowance for taxes for one versus another. His argument is in blak or white and holds together with all the logical force of a five-year old.

Are you sure his point wasn't that slavery was OK as long as slaves were made only to fix the roads and build the pyramids (i.e., slavery turned bad when was used to enrich Southern plantation owners). 'Cause that's where I thought club's logic was going.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand
Discussing politics is one thing. Posting comments which can be interpreted as personally threatening to the POTUS (a federal offense) is quite another. We have to have some rules here, don't we?

Dissent. More censorship, not unlike what happened to Shapeshifter-which still has not been explained.

Further, its my understanding that despite its deletion the Feds may very well be well aware of the post. The damage was done. A discoverable record exists. Game over.

I'm out.

See ya you know where.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are you SockfortheMan?

While I can't, apparently, ask what was typed, and I don't remember, it certainly was nothing I took to be an actual threat as opposed to hyperbole, which we all use around here.

Are we genuinely fearful that NSA or the WH is trolling here, looking to question Wonk? Where's club to defend the Patriot Act now?

[ETA:] And we do need rules here. I thought one of them was don't edit each other's posts, except for style codes. We didn't create a new set of boards because it would be cheaper and easier than staying at infirm.

2. Its indefensible. And the shocking thing is I bet the deletion committee is anti-Bush. How ironic.

At this point I find more tolerance at the DU than this place!! And those MFs are card carrying reds.

Ty?!?! Where's the justice???

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Where's club to defend the Patriot Act now?

It was an avowed liberal who did that editing, mirroring the reality that liberals have been responsible for so much more chilling of speech throughout history than any Ashcroftian crowd has ever dreamed of, despite the popular meme.

(Just kidding, RT.)

((Sort of.))

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by the Spartan
Ty?!?! Where's the justice???

I didn't see what wonk originally posted, so I can't speak for or against what RT did, but, behind my own personal veil of ignorance, I would be inclined not to edit posts in that way.

I would also be inclined to fund stem-cell research and agree to taxes establishing a safety net, FWIW.

Please note that the USA PATRIOT Act should appear in all caps because at the time its drafters did not have the cojones to actually call the thing the Patriot Act, and instead called it the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act," which itself should be some sort of federal misdemeanor.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by the Spartan
At this point I find more tolerance at the DU than this place!! And those MFs are card carrying reds.

Overwrought hyperbole. Someone - someone we all know a little (at least) about, and have some respect for - made a judgment call. Maybe we disagree with it. Maybe not. Cut some slack, and move on.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Problem is, I don't think you can present this as a moral question while acknowledging that you find some point along the continuum away from the zero-point to be acceptable. He's left with an "it's immoral if you want to spend more than I want to spend" position. If he wants to declaim that taxation with the explicit goal of taking from one to simply give to another in order to equalize resources is immoral, that's fine, but that's not the argument that I saw. He's still then left with the "we choose to spend on a common-good basis" argument, and all he can argue is that he has a better idea of what constitutes "common good".

I think there is a discernible point of division for some where those who receive private, individual benefits receive the same merely as beneficiaries of a government-mandated insurance scheme are separated from those who receive the same based on a contractual give-and-take between government and the beneficiary.

Gov't employees, military etc., gov't contractors all are providing a service. The others merely benefit from a rigged insurance scheme (or lottery). Along this rather simplistic line of thinking, I'm having trouble characterizing school kids.

Hello

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Overwrought hyperbole.

Lord, you have been away for a while.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• There's a story that Winston Churchill once asked a woman if she'd sleep with him for a million dollars. She replied, "of course". He then asked her is she'd sleep with him for a hundred dollars and she replied, "Sir, what kind of woman do you think I am?"
  "We've already established that," Churchill retorted, "Now, we're just haggling about price."

this offends me. someone delete this. its like the Bob Hope comedy hour around here.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Please note that the USA PATRIOT Act should appear in all caps because at the time its drafters did not have the cojones to actually call the thing the Patriot Act, and instead called it the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act," which itself should be some sort of federal misdemeanor.

True dat. It's proper form in Bush's Congress these days to create federal legislation with nifty acronyms that connote action! or patriotism! or mom-and-apple-pie! moments that simply must be a good thing, even if the act's substance has only a tenuous relationship to the image presented.

USA PATRIOT Act is one. CAN-SPAM is another that comes to mind, which ostensibly relates to either the further regulation of processed meat products, or the curtailing of unsolicited email, but in fact does neither.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Along this rather simplistic line of thinking, I'm having trouble characterizing school kids.

That's the real rub. There are plenty of public goods that we could generally agree upon fall within that category. Such goods have, generally, the following attributes, per tradition:

1) Non-excludability-- one can't provide the good to some without providing it to others, at least at reasonable expense. The military easily meets this; roads sort of (e.g., turnpikes); see the parable of the lighthouse for a Friedman rebuttal to this concept.

2) non-comsumptability. Use of the resource by one person does not diminish (or diminish greatly) its availability to others. (military yes; roads, perhaps not so much, although yes to stop signs)

Note that these categories do not necessarily include things that are for the "public good," such as schooling, subsidized health care, welfare benefits generally. There is no reason, from an economics standpoint, that schooling needs to be provided by government to cure a market failure: people will pay for schools if the government did not provide them. The reason the government pays for schools is because of a moral judgment that we ought to or a social(ist) judgment that society is better off if everyone has free schooling available to them. But at that point you're beyond a limited form of government with no particular bounds to its expansion short of communism.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
this offends me. someone delete this. its like the Bob Hope comedy hour around here.

Don't worry. Churchill's dead, and british intelligence sucks. They'll never find Ty.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

From AG's favorite site, http:www.electoral-vote.com (internal links omitted):

The big news today is in Colorado. The Colorado secretary of state, Donetta Davidson, has certified that the petition to change the way Colorado allocates its electors has gathered enough signatures to be on the ballot. On Nov. 2, Colorado voters will be asked if they approve a change to the state constitution that divides its nine votes in the electoral college in direct proportion to the popular vote. If it fails, George Bush will most likely get all nine electoral votes. If it passes, probably Bush will get five electoral votes, Kerry will get four, and the Supreme Court will get a world-class headache. Badly polarized as it is, the Court probably does not want to decide another election.

The legal issue will hinge on the second sentence of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. constitution, which reads: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..." Nothing forbids the state legislature from appointing the electors any way it wants to. Maine and Nebraska allocate one elector for each congressional district won plus two for winning state wide. In 1876, the Colorado legislature decided to save the taxpayers money and didn't bother having an election at all; it just appointed its three electors itself. The issue the Supreme Court may have to decide in 2004 is whether a state constitution can mandate how electors are apportioned, thus bypassing the state legislature. If the Court wants to veto the state constitution, it can interpret the U.S. constitution literally and say: "Nope. the legislature didn't approve; doesn't count." But on many other occasions the Court has looked for the intent of the founding fathers (founding parents?) and it is clear they meant the states could choose their electors any way they wanted to. In 1789 nobody envisioned statewide referenda on constitutional matters. If you were planning to stay up on election night until the presidential race is decided, bring lots of food and drink; it may take weeks again.