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

[prosopis]

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

As soon as you tell other people that they are rationalizing the corrupt claptrap that they want to spew, you have forfeited any claim to assessing other peoples' moral quality.

One universally accepted quality of morality is respecting the freedom of others. Telling other people what they think and what their motivations are is directly contrary to that, and thus eliminates you from being considered a moral individual.

There is a different that you apparently do not comprehend between being moral and being morally self righteous. Setting yourself up as the judge of others and overriding what they say with your own opinions about what they "really" think is an example of the latter.

When you have matured enough to realize that your own opinions are not the only valid opinions, then you might begin to understand what morality is.

Very well said. I'd rep you, but I doubt the system will let me again

[banjomike]

The crazy was a long time coming, and it will be a long leaving.

I expect to see some 19th century style fistfights to break out this November, but for the moment, just watching my own state's Republican insanities are entertaining enough for the moment.

In a state that has a 65% conservative majority, and complete control of state government for over 20 years, the Idaho Republicans here just fought the bitterest primary I've ever seen as an adult. Followed by a state convention that was so split it never got around to doing any of the business it was convened to do and was ended early after a 3-day fight over who was a real Republican or not. Followed by the closure of the state Republican headquarters. All the paid professionals- the accountants, fund raisers, etc. all quit because of the crazy, leaving only the Chairman, whose term was supposed to end with the convention ending. it took a legal battle to force him out of the building.

Followed by an upcoming fight that is sure to happen at the Idaho Republican's biggest fund raiser of the year, a big barbecue where tickets are sold and the candidates all have a chance to mingle with their constituency.
This year, the guy in charge of the event is still bitter to the bone after his primary loss to an incumbent, and the incumbent is going to receive an award for Idaho Republican of the Year.

The fight over this one has already begun a week early. I might buy a ticket just to go watch the crazy in full flower, as I'm a registered Republican. BBQ will be thrown, but i don't think the fight will stop with just a food fight. I'm just hoping it won't go down to guns and knives. Booze will flow, and Republicans get surly when drunk.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

As soon as you tell other people that they are rationalizing the corrupt claptrap that they want to spew, you have forfeited any claim to assessing other peoples' moral quality.

No I haven't. Rather, when you extol the virtues of callous disregard for others, then you forfeited any claim to assessing other peoples' moral quality.

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

One universally accepted quality of morality is respecting the freedom of others.

Making up your own perversions of logic now, are you? What you're referring to isn't freedom - it's the right to be selfish. There's a difference between narcissism and freedom.

Originally Posted by prosopis

Your explanations have gone no further than simply saying it isn't so, alluding to a universality you do not explain

False. Go back and read my messages and then post a reply. I'm not going to dignify your comments with a response until you dignify mine with a reading of them. (Of course, later you actually admit that I did, effectively belying yourself.)

Originally Posted by prosopis

You do not read closely enough to realize that I do not support what you characterize as immoral out of similar immorality. I support what I support for practical considerations.

What's really silly is that I just said that: That you insist on ignoring morality and insist on fixating on what you consider practical, and whine about the fact that others won't play by your corrupt rules.

You refuse to consider the immorality of what you support. You just said that. Now will you admit it?

Originally Posted by prosopis

I have explained briefly why morality and politics are mutually inconsistent, but I doubt you read that. You respond to the fact of disagreement, not the substance of it.

I not only acknowledged it, I made it part of the explanation of what's so egregious about what you're promoting.

Originally Posted by prosopis

Very well said. I'd rep you, but I doubt the system will let me again

There are limits placed on the echo chamber effect.

[prosopis]

Originally Posted by bUU

What's really silly is that I just said that: That you insist on ignoring morality and insist on fixating on what you consider practical, and whine about the fact that others won't play by your corrupt rules.

"Ignoring morality" implies a lack of acknowledgement of the underlying moral considerations. You have not demonstrated, for example, that the Ryan welfare reforms I support are intended to be immoral. If they were, you would have a good point.

However, no where will you find Ryan saying "these reforms are intended to save money by taking benefits away from those who need them." You probably will find him saying something like "these reforms are intended to save money by taking benefits away from those who do not need them." It is generally not considered immoral to cease paying people welfare when they could be out earning their own living - you might consider that immoral, but most of us do not.

My assertion is not that it's ok to ignore morality completely or when convenient to do so. It is that governance gets complicated enough that the moral considerations are not always involved and not always clear when they are, being somewhat subjective when applied to real situations. Taking Ryan as an example again, you will find no evidence of immoral intent because there is none as defined even by your link the the UN's universal ethics. You would probably find plenty of things that you personally feel will be immoral in results, but nothing that gets above your opinion alone.

That is why making political decisions based on your own take on morality makes you politically irrelevant. My preference would be to always have a libertarian candidate to vote for, but they never win and if they did they would likely end up disappointing voters because once governing they would have to compromise to get things done - and their early supporters would feel this was a moral violation.

Originally Posted by bUU

You refuse to consider the immorality of what you support. You just said that. Now will you admit it?

Absolutely not. I refuse to agree that you or anyone else has clearly and concisely proven that it is immoral by an objective metric of morality. Prove it and I will be happy to change my mind on the issue. I doubt very much that you can prove it even using your own metric of morality rather than an objective one.

Before you come back with something generic like "placing value of money over value of human welfare is immoral" - yes, of course it is, but your idea that this is the intent of conservatism is just your opinion. Demonstrate conclusively through objective evidence that what I support - welfare reform as just one example, but I gave you others - is intended to do this.

Want to talk tax increases? Sure. I claim that the conservative resistance to tax increases has everything to do with waste and ineffective federal programs and nothing to do with a worship of money over human welfare. What conservatives fundamentally dislike is paying for defective services, which many federal programs clearly are. We dislike it because there is no benefit to doing it. The resistance to tax increases for funding these programs has everything to do with fixing their inefficiency. Do that first, and you would most likely find that the tax increase is not needed - and that is basically the conservative position on it.

Now if you want to talk about a case of a clear moral issue in governance, shall we discuss the use of drones without probable cause?

[wade52]

They jumped the shark back in the Clinton days. Since then, the psychosis has deepened.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by prosopis

"Ignoring morality" implies a lack of acknowledgement of the underlying moral considerations.

And you've made clear that you don't acknowledge moral considerations - that your self-motivated "practicality" is all that matters to you. Why are you belaboring the point? Do you really think that if you spew your egoistic avarice repeatedly, that the moral repudiation of your preferences will magically vanish?

Originally Posted by prosopis

You have not demonstrated, for example, that the Ryan welfare reforms I support are intended to be immoral.

Ryan wants to cut spending before alternatives make the spending unnecessary. It's a juvenile, immoral perspective - he doesn't have the moral fortitude to actually prove that the safety net is unnecessary before cutting it away. All it shows is an overriding care for money over human beings.

Originally Posted by prosopis

However, no where will you find Ryan saying "these reforms are intended to save money by taking benefits away from those who need them."

The fact that Ryan won't admit the moral failings of what he supports shouldn't be surprising to anyone. The fact that you are duped by his nonsense shows you're simply unwilling to acknowledge the callousness and carelessness of what he, and apparently you, support.

Originally Posted by prosopis

My assertion is not that it's ok to ignore morality completely or when convenient to do so.

I don't believe your claim. Your words have demonstrated the opposite perspective. Given how many words you've spewed in vacuous defense of immorality, is there much else to say?

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by banjomike

The crazy was a long time coming, and it will be a long leaving.

I expect to see some 19th century style fistfights to break out this November, but for the moment, just watching my own state's Republican insanities are entertaining enough for the moment.

In a state that has a 65% conservative majority, and complete control of state government for over 20 years, the Idaho Republicans here just fought the bitterest primary I've ever seen as an adult. Followed by a state convention that was so split it never got around to doing any of the business it was convened to do and was ended early after a 3-day fight over who was a real Republican or not. Followed by the closure of the state Republican headquarters. All the paid professionals- the accountants, fund raisers, etc. all quit because of the crazy, leaving only the Chairman, whose term was supposed to end with the convention ending. it took a legal battle to force him out of the building.

Followed by an upcoming fight that is sure to happen at the Idaho Republican's biggest fund raiser of the year, a big barbecue where tickets are sold and the candidates all have a chance to mingle with their constituency.
This year, the guy in charge of the event is still bitter to the bone after his primary loss to an incumbent, and the incumbent is going to receive an award for Idaho Republican of the Year.

The fight over this one has already begun a week early. I might buy a ticket just to go watch the crazy in full flower, as I'm a registered Republican. BBQ will be thrown, but i don't think the fight will stop with just a food fight. I'm just hoping it won't go down to guns and knives. Booze will flow, and Republicans get surly when drunk.

"just watching my own state's Republican insanities are entertaining enough for the moment."

After living in a dem controlled state for over 60 years I could say many things about dems idiocy.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by bUU

No I haven't. Rather, when you extol the virtues of callous disregard for others, then you forfeited any claim to assessing other peoples' moral quality.

Making up your own perversions of logic now, are you? What you're referring to isn't freedom - it's the right to be selfish. There's a difference between narcissism and freedom.

False. Go back and read my messages and then post a reply. I'm not going to dignify your comments with a response until you dignify mine with a reading of them. (Of course, later you actually admit that I did, effectively belying yourself.)

What's really silly is that I just said that: That you insist on ignoring morality and insist on fixating on what you consider practical, and whine about the fact that others won't play by your corrupt rules.

You refuse to consider the immorality of what you support. You just said that. Now will you admit it?

I not only acknowledged it, I made it part of the explanation of what's so egregious about what you're promoting.

There are limits placed on the echo chamber effect.

Those making accusations are usually the REAL guilty ones.

[prosopis]

Originally Posted by bUU

And you've made clear that you don't acknowledge moral considerations - that your self-motivated "practicality" is all that matters to you. Why are you belaboring the point? Do you really think that if you spew your egoistic avarice repeatedly, that the moral repudiation of your preferences will magically vanish?

No, I keep it up because you are amusing in your insistence that there is only your own view of the world. I pick on creationists for the same reason.

I do acknowledge moral considerations, but I do not insist (as do you) that they are the single guiding consideration in political decision making. When you say that '"practicality" is all that matters to me' your accusation with no support shows a very egocentric and closed minded view of the world. I keep saying otherwise but you don't believe it because it does not fit your safe little preconceived notion.

Originally Posted by bUU

Ryan wants to cut spending before alternatives make the spending unnecessary. It's a juvenile, immoral perspective - he doesn't have the moral fortitude to actually prove that the safety net is unnecessary before cutting it away. All it shows is an overriding care for money over human beings.

Why do you think that he wants to "cut it (the safety net) away" and that he thinks it "unnecessary"? There is no indication of that at all. His stated goal is to improve efficiency so that the programs can continue without constant fights over tax increases to support them. I believe I've said that before. Nowhere does he say "lets cut away these unnecessary assistance programs" - that's all in your head.

Originally Posted by bUU

The fact that Ryan won't admit the moral failings of what he supports shouldn't be surprising to anyone. The fact that you are duped by his nonsense shows you're simply unwilling to acknowledge the callousness and carelessness of what he, and apparently you, support.

Again with all the moralizing and the complete and total lack of support for your assertions. Just saying something does not make it so. Prove to me that Ryan's intent is other than what he claims it to be and I will agree that he's immoral in pushing these reforms. Your disapproving of the spirit of the reforms does not make them immoral, callous, or careless in any way.

Originally Posted by bUU

I don't believe your claim. Your words have demonstrated the opposite perspective. Given how many words you've spewed in vacuous defense of immorality, is there much else to say?

No, there is nothing more to say, but you sure do keep saying nothing at length. You are not able to engage in specifics because you have nothing other than your own self righteousness. You may interpret my words however you wish - but if you want to engage in debate rather than simply working yourself up into your usual lather of indignation, then you must actually come back with something substantial.

Prove to me that Ryan's intent is other than he has stated - prove to me that his intent is to completely cut out welfare programs rather than to make them work better with their current level of funding.

You could also actually address my explanation of why conservatives are opposed to tax increases. Great opportunity there if you are willing to wash off the lather and do some thinking for a change.

The fact is, and you are demonstrating this admirably, that many progressives do not want to debate issues at all. They do not want to address the moral ambiguity that exists in political decision making, they just want to screech about how evil their opponents are. But they never can show it, they never can prove by any objective metric that those opponents are evil -- and the reason is that they are not, no more so than any other person, political progressives included. But the moral indignation and self righteousness are very alluring because they are safe. No thought required, no decisions to be made, no ambiguity at all. Just follow the recipe and shout down any dissent and you are assured of a nice feeling of being right!

But it isn't all that nice, is it? The feeling isn't there, which is what makes you so angry. What you don't seem to realize is that there is no easy way to get what you want - the self assurance that you are right. It's hard work because you have to actually engage in the debate, you have to fight for your position with all the information you can come up with, and you have to think up a convincing argument that interprets that information in a plausible way.

I love that you call me vacuous.... talk about projection!

[DCforever]

I encourage the T-Baggers to purge their party of all moderates. Oust the Chamber of Commerce RINOs.