Michael MooreFollow

Quiet, you. Strawmen are all he has right now.

yes yes, we know Gbaji. Your positions are always nuanced.

um... Was this recent or something?

We know I have a bad memory but I don't recall you doing so, and it's 5 am. I'll look tomorrow. Ahh **** it lets try google

Found one

You know what's extremely funny and ironic about the "conservative" case against gay marriage isn't that it's not secular, because it is, but that it's a very, very strong, secular, Liberal argument against expanding benefits to gay couples, or in having marriage at all, in terms of government interference in the economy. There are actually some extremely Liberal people that would probably agree with this argument's train of thought (save the taxes for better spending on other things, like healthcare and housing etc) and just dissolve the institution of marriage in the first place.

The government has no place subsidizing marriage, at all unless... it produces a practical benefit to society? What the hell? Since when are conservatives utilitarians? You are supposed to let people make their own choices and reap the consequences. The unwed single mothers who got knocked up should be left to die, as should everyone else who ****** like rabbits in highschool, but you can't say that to anyone with the least bit of moral compassion for humanity, so you pretend to have compassion for unions them by sticking a children clause in the backdoor.

Your positions, gbaji like to let personal freedoms run free so long as people reap their consequences, and you don't really like the government to use money anyway. Now, building roads, water, electricity, etc, provide the economic backbone of society, but you, as a conservative really have no business at all in fiddling with the social backbone of society. The only reason a Liberal would put up with this **** is because you're holding marriage hostage so that at least some people can get help from the government. The conservative gets to socially engineer the unclean trash babies out of existence while a Liberal takes joy that there is any marriage, at all.


Of course we all know that the "secular case" for gay marriage restriction is ludicrous for unrelated reasons (it's selectively historical, commits naturalistic fallacy, it's unethical etc) but I can't help point out this ludicrous contradiction in logic.

Yup. That's one. I've found a few myself. The point I was making is that while Joph (and others) claim that I simply parrot a small number of well-known conservative pundits, the reality seem to be more that if an argument given by someone *doesn't* match what a well-known pundit is saying, it gets dismissed as irrelevant, or not popular, or "no one but you says that!".

I don't determine the legitimacy of a position based on what the pundits are saying, but it sure seems as though most of my critics do. I just find it interesting that because my position on gay marriage is based on a reasoning which isn't broadly discussed or debated (you really do have to look for it), it must automatically be wrong. But then, as I pointed out above, doesn't that mean that *you* are determining the validity of an argument based on whether pundits are repeating it? If you haven't heard it before, does that make it wrong? It shouldn't, yet it seems as though many posters here seem to think so...




We always have been. As I've also pointed out before, Classical Liberalism does not preclude having government establish rules to govern society, and even infringe liberties along the way (as all rules must do). We do not hold a "never do this. Ever!" position. We are not anarchists. The deciding criteria should be based on whether there is a higher degree of liberty protected as a result (real liberty, not the bogus new definitions many modern liberals have invented). So yeah. Infringing some liberties in order to encourage more heterosexual couples to have children inside a marriage is worth it. The impact on the rest of us otherwise is pretty huge. Just look at the effects we're already seeing as a result of all the social welfare programs out there.


The difference between conservatives and liberals in this context is not about whether one does this or does not do this sort of thing, but rather what criteria is used to determine if we do. Liberals will infringe liberty in order to provide temporary benefits to the citizens, with no expectation of some improved rate of liberty resulting (and in fact, in most cases causing a greater infringement down the line). Conservatives do this only when they believe that the result will increase liberty on balance. Marriage incentives do that. Welfare (for example) does not.




The unwed single mothers, having made that decision, should have to fend for themselves, without government assistance. However that does not preclude the use of government to create incentives to attempt to get her to not end out in that position in the first place. If we provide her assistance after the fact, it results in an incentive to become a single unwed mother. If we provide an incentive to marry, it reduces her likelihood to end out in that state.



You, as a liberal, have no business telling me what I, as a conservative actually believe. How about you let me tell you what I think is right and why? Just a thought...




You know. I keep asking you to do this, but you keep ignoring and/or refusing. This is about a choice of actions. Why not apply that analysis to *both* sides of the issue equally? Are you saying that the argument for gay marriage has fewer fallacies?

We don't wait for an absolutely perfect course of action to magically appear before us. If we do, we'll never do anything at all. Instead, we look at the choices before us and pick the best one. I'm not saying that the case for keeping marriage benefits restricted the way they are is "perfect", I simply state it's better.

That's right. You just said that it "happens repeatedly". I can't imagine why I might think you're accusing me of doing this with any sort of regularity...


And if we're going to talk about strawmen, how about your whole "Are you saying you *never* listen to conservative pundits?!", complete with a question about how I could know what and when they're saying things if I don't. Of course I occasionaly listen to those guys. And I'd wager I listen to conservative pundits less often than you do, and I certainly listen to them later in the day than you do. The reason you may be recognizing what I say as being similar to what you heard earlier isn't because *I* listened to the radio and repeated what I heard, but because *you* listened to the radio and now recognize what I'm saying as being similar.


Again. I'd suggest that it has more to do with your own listening habits than mine. There is no reason to assume that two conservative arriving at similar positions based on similar information is in any way unusual. Why you assume that only one of them could have come to a conclusion and the other must just be repeating the first is beyond me...

I'm not attempting to. I'm attempting to tell you what you should believe according to your other beliefs, show how it reduces to absurdity and incompatibility, and render it unwise to set forth.



Yeah, pretty much. I'll go so far as to say it's perfect even. I don't recognize any downside, encroachment on liberty, your concept or mine, or decrease in the total utility of the country at all.



I fail to see how encouraging people to marry and then paying them for it increases classical, non-bogus liberty at all.

And if we're going to talk about strawmen, how about your whole "Are you saying you *never* listen to conservative pundits?!", complete with a question about how I could know what and when they're saying things if I don't. Of course I occasionaly listen to those guys. And I'd wager I listen to conservative pundits less often than you do, and I certainly listen to them later in the day than you do. The reason you may be recognizing what I say as being similar to what you heard earlier isn't because *I* listened to the radio and repeated what I heard, but because *you* listened to the radio and now recognize what I'm saying as being similar.

Hi.

Allow me to point out that it's painfully obvious to everyone reading this thread that your assertion that you spontaneously and organically arrive at a word for word verbatim slogan prior to hearing or reading it somewhere is:

FUCKING LUDICROUS

You have never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, once posted an idea of your own. You have, of course, UNIQUELY butchered other people's ideas because you can't manage to get from the slogan to thought process, but really sort of emphasizes this whole point, does it not? You parrot things that you don't understand and then try to explain them and we all laugh. It's WHAT YOU DO. It's your entire posting raison d'etre.

This reminds me that I usually enjoy listening to Medved even if I disagree with him politically. But he usually has a much more mature view of things than the rest of the usual suspects. My only real criticism is that he demeans himself by insisting on using the term "Islamo-****" or "Islamo-Fascist" when, quite frankly, he's better than that. Or at least he should be.

Oh, but I was reminded of this by today's program in which he reiterated that Birthers are idiots who need to get a life. I can't disagree with that.

Well I just had an interesting evening. Turns out my parents also watched Sicko. My parents, who are as Midwestern as it's possible to be without being Sarah Palin.

They were both shocked, and my mother wants me to move to France.

I'm gonna say just randomly, I've never listened to Air America and I don't know anyone who does.

Why don't we stop pretending that I've ever called you a bigot or a homophobe? I mean, I don't recall ever saying that, though if you can prove me wrong I'll publicly apologize.



Course I do, I just recognize different implications from them than you do. What else is new?

Of course I'm going to derive absurd implications from them when my entire damn purpose at the time is an attempt to show how the premises are absurd. You can't just happenstance into an absurdity; you have to have some contradiction in mind that you think is implied, and then actually show a link.



Whether or not it blinds me completely, I do have a bias. I recognize it, work to suppress it, and attempt to understand it. Do you recognize yours?



Yes, that was the point. My entire point was that your position was equivocal and didn't actually commit to anything. There is a contradiction in it. You're attempting to justify it I guess, but really, you'll never be able to justify a pair of such blatantly mutually exclusive ideas to me. My bias has nothing to do with recognizing this; my bias prevents me from accepting it.

Both my parents game from Wisconsin dairy farms. My earliest political views were forged in the fields. My dad, particularly, was my influence. He was independent, conservative hard working. He had an innate respect for 'nature' and most all our family activities took place among the MN lakes and woods.

Years ago when I was doing field work and spent a lot of time driving, I occasionally listened to talk radio (my favorite was the late night/early morning UFO talk show Coast-to-Coast). I listened to Rush, and Dr. Laura, and Joy Brown, and Howie Carr, Mary Madeline. I liked Dr. Laura, I certainly didn't agree with her on lots of stuff, but mostly she made good sense. Rush was nothing but a blow hard. Honestly, if he influenced my political convictions at all, he certainly wasn't pulling me towards the right.

I've mostly always voted for a candidate and not a party. In fact, I've been in Maine since 92 - the 2008 elections were the first time I voted all dem here. Historically I've voted independent or third party - local elections I'll not hesitate to vote republican if I like the candidate.

My education, was, until recently, pretty much caught up in math and science. I never really thought about politics from the big picture point of view.

But then over the years, working as a public servant, seeing the inefficiencies inherent in the system, but also witnessing the day to day running of my little part of the world and gauging the success of those efforts, I've became much more interested in public policy - enough so to seek an advanced degree in Public Administration.

There are/were some profs I really respected and some I didn't - my fav being an admittedly gushing bleeding heart liberal, with more common sense than about anyone I've ever met. My advisor, the states most renown economist, is completely non-commital - even when I try and get him to commit to a side or a cause.

I think capitalism should be the base of our economy, but will not ever hesitate supporting government intervention, or complete government oversight when it's necessary. Government is necessary when dealing with minimal, but equitable, distribution of whatever our society currently thinks are necessities of life - food, shelter, healthcare, education, safety.

I've pretty much decided that, even if a government it losing up to about 20% efficiency thru being a bureaucratic organization, it's worth it to know that we have systems in place to insure EVERYONE gets a fair shake in this world. Capitalism alone can't do that.

Where did you learn to be such a bull-headed self-righteous conservative to the point that you make shit up to convince yourself and others that you are 'righter' than all us 'liberals'?