Has the GOP gone insane? And if not, at what point or criteria might we safely say it has? (suspect, dollars)

[prosopis]

Originally Posted by Ed from California

Yup. The real "insanity" is demonstrated in forums like this one by the leftwing nutcases that populate them. Honestly, they're not worth engaging; just laughing at.

Yeah, I do not consider this time well spent... but that guy is still more fun than anything on tv

[mateo45]

Originally Posted by prosopis

That is the irony of this thread - if there are indeed now so many nutters in the GOP that it is a "problem" then what are the Democrats so worried about? Let me put it another way - for whom would this even be a problem? The GOP.

The manner in which you started this thread in the first place indicates to me that you don't really think the bulk of the GOP is made up of nutters - I think you wish to reinforce that impression by talking about what nutters they are, and having people like bUU chime in and build on it. That is why the obvious reply is to point out that there remain huge numbers of sane people involved in GOP politics and voting, and that the Dems have plenty of idiots of their own.

That same survey from which you got those statistics also found that 24% of Democrats and 29% of non-affiliated voters felt that the government knew about 9/11. I believe that was mentioned earlier in this thread, and one of your faithful brethren chimed in with "yeah, but that one is true!". Maybe that was you, I can't remember. Either way, its a perfect example of how nuttiness spans the parties when it comes to voters.

I will take you at your word though, that this problem is a problem for all because the opposition party is not viable as a result of it, and observe the following:

Many people dismiss the influence of the press on the credibility of the GOP, saying that this is a tired old myth (yes, we did just discuss this a few posts back). I tend to believe it because I am a very contrary voter - I tend not to agree with whoever is in power. When Bush was in office I tended to seek out opposition news sources, and once Obama was elected I found them to be overly "ra-ra, pull for the home team" and had to switch to Fox. The opposition press is vastly more interesting than the sympathetic one, because they are free to tell the truth - the sympathetic press has to tone it down out of worry over the fallout. Next time we get a Republican Prez, I'll quickly switch back to opposition news sources as Fox will be pulling for their guy again.

Its also much of the reason that the liberal media loves covering those creationist whackos and Fox loves running stories about the latest offense against christians (I ignore both kinds of stories, but usually do see the headlines). People love to read this kind of crap, especially when if reinforces what they want to think anyway - either that all GOP'ers are creationist whackos or all Dems are atheists stomping on devout christians. Neither is true, but both sure get the hits and sell ad space.

So if you really want to worry about the "problem" of credibility in the opposition, you should look at the press, not the parties.

Personally, I still think you and a lot of others here just want to revel in comparing just how whacko all the GOP'ers are. That is just an inference drawn from your tone and choice of words, nothing more. It may not be correct, but it is the impression you give.

Funny how you can always spot the long-winded "evasive" posts a mile away (and now you're a "victim" too…lol)?! So how many times do I have to repeat it specifically, that not all Republicans or conservatives are nutters? And why do you keep evading the central question of the OP by changing the subject? What difference does it make whether Dems "revel" in the GOP's "non-existent" nuttery or not? Obviously some believe in Sun Tzu's old maxim to 'never interrupt your enemy when they're busy making a mistake'. Myself, I think it's bad for both the country and for the GOP.

But all your rhetorical tap-dancing and "De Nile" has illustrated here, is that just trying to have a rational discussion about the subject is kinda like living next to a family of junkies… where so many are full-blown addicts, while the rest help defend and "enable" 'em. So looks like y'all still gotta "hit bottom" first, before we can get to the "come to Jee-zus" part!

[prosopis]

Originally Posted by mateo45

Funny how you can always spot the long-winded "evasive" posts a mile away (and now you're a "victim" too…lol)?! So how many times do I have to repeat it specifically, that not all Republicans or conservatives are nutters? And why do you keep evading the central question of the OP by changing the subject? What difference does it make whether Dems "revel" in the GOP's "non-existent" nuttery or not? Obviously some believe in Sun Tzu's old maxim to 'never interrupt your enemy when they're busy making a mistake'. Myself, I think it's bad for both the country and for the GOP.

But all your rhetorical tap-dancing and "De Nile" has illustrated here, is that trying to have a rational discussion about the subject is kinda like living next to a family of junkies… where many are addicts, while the rest simply defend and "enable" 'em. So looks like y'all still gotta "hit bottom " first, before we can get to the "come to Jee-zus" part!

You must be bUU's almost more sane brother

I fail to see how your unwillingness to read and digest is evasive tap dancing on my part. Telling you that your OP does not do what you now say it intended to do is not changing the subject - it is observing that your OP is ineffective at what you now state as it's goal.

Why do you think I'm claiming to be a victim? That's out of left field to me so please requote me the part that you take that way - I'm genuinely interested to know what I said that can be so mistaken in what I meant to communicate.

I do know that you say not all Republicans are nutters. But you've started a thread about how tons and tons of them are, and whether the GOP as a group has gone insane. Does it seem so unreasonable to conclude that you think the sane ones are outliers? Is it surprising that a Republican who knows a lot of other sane Republicans would take issue with the impression you appear to have of the GOP?

Ok, so you think having a weak opposition party is bad for the country. Maybe the smarter way to approach a discussion of this problem would be to address the problem and look for solutions, rather than get all the usual liberal posters around here to contribute to your thread on how insane the GOP is. Going back and looking at your OP, I don't see anything but "Gee, look at all them wacky Republicans, they sure are a crazy bunch" - nothing at all about how this is bad for the country because it denies the voters a clear choice between two reasonable paths forward.

But lets take you at your word and talk about solutions. Would that be a rational enough discussion for you?

Is a third party going to help? Sure never has in the past. Why do you think people don't like a third party?

Since so much of the electorate is reported to be very moderate, perhaps a Moderate Party would be the thing. I kind of wonder (really, I do, not being sarcastic) why the Independents aren't far more popular in the US.

Ok, so if we think a third party is out (I think that but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise), what can be done to make the GOP more "sane" as you put it. Want to banish Fox News from existence? Nah... too radical.

How about education? Tell the AGW skeptics that their science is not going to hold up - I do that btw, go look at some of those posts in the two recent AGW threads here.

Ok, I'm out of ideas. Didn't think that hard about it, but maybe if you come up with some more ideas we can go somewhere with it.

I must be tap dancing again - I suspect I am because this isn't what you posted about in the first place
Feel free to surprise me though, as I have repeatedly told bUU. Jump into that rational discussion you want to have, I'm game. BTW, I'm assuming you know that "rational discussion" is not necessarily my agreeing with whatever you say - bUU is a bit fuzzy on that part

[Enigma777]

Originally Posted by pghquest

I'm sorry you didnt hear the people moaning over Bush's $200B deficits. Maybe you were too busy trying to figure out how you were going to blame Republicans for Obamas/Democrats, $1T ones..

I cant believe anyone would even post that, and then expect to be taken seriously

Guess you only listen to the other side when they are attacking yourside for doing things 5x as dumb

So Republicans did not notice how much money Bush was spending and how it was spent until 2008? I am pretty sure his spending and wasting money started long before that. My point stands.

Would you please do us the courtesy of writing in English? I know it is a lot of work, but that would include using punctuation. Thanks.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by prosopis

There was plenty of material to which you could respond with an argument of substance in my last post

But as we've already agreed, the argument was over: You already admitted that you place what you cynically call "practicality" over morality. That's what I've condemned - and you yourself admitted it - so there is nothing more to say except to keep clarifying that your claptrap is being posted simply to dodge and evade the legitimate condemnation directed at it. Pandering to your self-centered diatribes just rewards you for trying to browbeat morality out of the discussion, quite the opposite of what is best.

Originally Posted by prosopis

You're not here for intelligent discussion

And I suppose my mother wore Army boots. Your tactics for evading the legitimate moral repudiation of that which you support are becoming increasingly childish, insisting on discussing the discussion instead of responding to the moral repudiation.

I am here for intelligent discussion - of the moral aspects of this issue. I'm here to discuss why throwing people into the trash heap, as your perspective's callous disregard for others would dictate, is wrong. I'm here to make sure that the corrupt egoistic avarice that your perspective provides cover for doesn't get an unrebutted soapbox. And I'm here to make sure that it remains clear that, as myriad moral leaders have taught, that the most significant gauge for a society is specifically how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Originally Posted by mateo45

Funny how you can always spot the long-winded "evasive" posts a mile away (and now you're a "victim" too…lol)?!

Evasion is all they have. They have no legitimate defense for their offensive perspectives, so they simply post voluminous, diversionary diatribes that either seek to dodge the moral issues altogether, or seek to deny universally-acknowledged ethics and other touchstones of ubiquitously-agreed upon standards of behavior. All in the attempt to rationalize the self-serving claptrap they prefer.

[LauraC]

Originally Posted by mateo45

Is it finally time that we ask the increasingly obvious question, namely…
[ over a third actually believe the POTUS is a muslim? And that's not even counting all the ones who think Obama is an alien lizard, the anti-christ, hell-bent on "turning the U.S. into a 3rd world country",

Maybe they believed Obama when he told George Snuffleupagus that he was a Muslim.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw

[prosopis]

Originally Posted by bUU

But as we've already agreed, the argument was over: You already admitted that you place what you cynically call "practicality" over morality. That's what I've condemned - and you yourself admitted it - so there is nothing more to say except to keep clarifying that your claptrap is being posted simply to dodge and evade the legitimate condemnation directed at it. Pandering to your self-centered diatribes just rewards you for trying to browbeat morality out of the discussion, quite the opposite of what is best.

You see, there is your fatal flaw again. You are assuming that when I agree the argument is over, that the reason I say that is the same as yours. Still reading? Good. I think the argument is over because you never address points made to you, preferring instead to simply repeat your condemnation and let that suffice. Still reading? I doubt it - you think I'm being evasive. When the world is as simple as yours seems to be, recognition of complexity is evasion. Must be pleasant in your world but you're going to get awfully hungry! Maybe that's why you seem so mean and angry all the time, because you're hungry. Or perhaps you just don't understand that taking the moral high ground for the purpose of talking down to everyone else is immoral, and it rots your soul in a hurry. Of course, you're not reading this anyway... You're a very amusing person.

Originally Posted by bUU

And I suppose my mother wore Army boots. Your tactics for evading the legitimate moral repudiation of that which you support are becoming increasingly childish, insisting on discussing the discussion instead of responding to the moral repudiation.

No, "your mother wears army boots" is an insult. "You're not here for intelligent discussion" is an observation. Observations may or may not be fully correct, since they are necessarily colored by the observer's own prejudices. This one seems to be more correct than not however, as you keep coming back to demonstrate. You're so much fun I'm never going to get tired of this. You probably heckle stand up comics too.

Originally Posted by bUU

I am here for intelligent discussion - of the moral aspects of this issue. I'm here to discuss why throwing people into the trash heap, as your perspective's callous disregard for others would dictate, is wrong. I'm here to make sure that the corrupt egoistic avarice that your perspective provides cover for doesn't get an unrebutted soapbox. And I'm here to make sure that it remains clear that, as myriad moral leaders have taught, that the most significant gauge for a society is specifically how it treats its most vulnerable members.

From what I have seen, you are here to state your own opinion, as am I. The difference comes when someone challenges that opinion, you do not defend your opinion with intelligence, you defend it with anger and righteous indignation, and when that does not work you simply repeat it ad nauseam.

Since your paragraph above is as close as you have come to actually engaging in discussion, I will respond to it. I have little doubt that you will ignore the response, demonstrating that you are not here for participation in a discussion. Feel free to surprise me, I love surprises.

Ok, so you say that the most significant way of measuring a society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. I agree with that. And I further agree that our society (the US) does not do as good a job of it as it could given it's resources. However, I do recognize that there are limits to what we can do - and this is the part you have been ignoring and will continue to ignore. I suspect you ignore it because either you know it to be true and have no way of rebutting it, or because these gritty details are like actually caring for the sick and injured - a dirty, smelly, gritty job, of little interest to fine philosophers like yourself.

Assuming you got through that (the first half was the important part, feel free to skim the rest ), what is your feeling on what I call practical limits? Do you think we should all be equally impoverished in order to feed all those who are hungry? What do we do if even that is not enough? Do you think that the third question does not matter? Do you think that the second question does not matter?

Originally Posted by bUU

Evasion is all they have. They have no legitimate defense for their offensive perspectives, so they simply post voluminous, diversionary diatribes that either seek to dodge the moral issues altogether, or seek to deny universally-acknowledged ethics and other touchstones of ubiquitously-agreed upon standards of behavior. All in the attempt to rationalize the self-serving claptrap they prefer.

Why do you think that recognizing the limits on our abilities to help everyone forever is dodging the moral issue? Is it because you think those limits do not exist? If so, how do you guarantee that everyone is fed and housed? How do you solve the problem of paying for it? What do you do when you haven't quite enough money to do it? Do you think this is evading the moral issue?

If you had actually read what I wrote about those UN acknowledged ethics, you would see that I did not deny them - I seem to recall a critique of one or two, but no denial. No evasion, at least to those of us who do live in the real world and do solve gritty problems now and then. You will probably say that recognizing limits on our abilities is evasion, demonstrating that you do not live in the real world and solve problems.

You call it evasion, self-serving claptrap, and all that other stuff because you have no answer. You do not understand the reality of paying for anything, so its as if I'm speaking another language to you. You seem to think that acknowledging the realities of the world - food costs money, people must be paid for their efforts at growing that food or they will not do so, and there is a finite amount of food to be grown - you seem to think that realizing these things and many others is giving up. You seem to think that if you are moral enough these problems will simply go away. But then, you gave up reading ages ago Tell me, did you Occupy anywhere a couple years ago? Wouldn't surprise me in the least

[bUU]

Originally Posted by prosopis

You see, there is your fatal flaw again. You are assuming that when I agree the argument is over, that the reason I say that is the same as yours.

Not at all. I couldn't care less what ridiculous deception you perpetrate on yourself. The point here is that you're defending egoistic avarice. You're trying to justify callous disregard for others. The perspectives you support are immoral. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the offensiveness of what you put forward is not surprising - it's expected. Admitting the reality of how immoral what you support is would be sociopathic; there are sociopathic right-wingers (i.e., those who admit how immoral their perspectives are but claim that it is acceptable for the strong to exploit the weak with impunity), but I never suggest that you were one of those. Most right-wingers insulate themselves from the requisite humanity necessary to acknowledge the egregious nature of what they support, rather than embracing it.

[prosopis]

Originally Posted by bUU

Not at all. I couldn't care less what ridiculous deception you perpetrate on yourself. The point here is that you're defending egoistic avarice. You're trying to justify callous disregard for others. The perspectives you support are immoral. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the offensiveness of what you put forward is not surprising - it's expected. Admitting the reality of how immoral what you support is would be sociopathic; there are sociopathic right-wingers (i.e., those who admit how immoral their perspectives are but claim that it is acceptable for the strong to exploit the weak with impunity), but I never suggest that you were one of those. Most right-wingers insulate themselves from the requisite humanity necessary to acknowledge the egregious nature of what they support, rather than embracing it.

Oh, what a surprise! You completely ignored (again) the overtures to rational discussion and started calling names! I'm absolutely SHOCKED!

You are fun...

So you find acknowledging that there may be some degree of limitation on our financial abilities to help the poor to be offensive. I believe that has been established. You just call it "callous disregard for others" so that you can avoid having to actually think about solutions to problems and can instead pretend that you have all the answers and your opponents have none of them.

You cannot demonstrate by logical argument that my position is immoral, you just keep saying it, hoping that I'll give up. Its pathetic really, you attempt to apply guilt and shame based on such weak reasoning (your last sentence) and never realize that all you do is open yourself to continual ridicule due to your complete inability to enter into a debate like a reasonable adult.

So, you didn't care for the invitation to intelligent discussion, and didn't want to think about all those questions. I will thus put it much more bluntly. You say that what I support is immoral. Prove it. Use your UN web page and prove that the conservative position on welfare reform is immoral. Make a convincing argument to support your position.

Or just keep doing what you are doing, it keeps proving my point Betcha no one else but you is reading it at this point

[bUU]

Originally Posted by prosopis

Or just keep doing what you are doing, it keeps proving my point Betcha no one else but you is reading it at this point

Except those giving me rep for yet again drawing the distinction between your perspective, grounded in self-centered avarice, and my perspective, grounded in mature and compassionate regard for the most vulnerable in society.