Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
You don't really care about the process. You care only that the process results in something you do care about.
You completely misunderstood me but that's okay. I'm more interested in the mechanics of politics. Obviously I have things I'd like to see happen or not happen. But ultimately, it's the machine that fascinates me more than insisting that if you don't interpret the constitution the same way I do, you've failed in upholding the ideals of the nation or whatever claptrap.
And yet, you only make this claim when what you want violates someone else's moral viewpoint and you don't want to have the discussion. When we're discussing gay marriage, or DADT, or prayer in school, or any of the social issues
you care about you're all about the objective and how important it is, with nary a mention of the process. I've never seen you pass up an opportunity to argue morals when it's your morals involved. When it's poor people not getting their welfare checks, or women not being able to abort their pregnancies, or minorities not making the same money, you're all about the issue.
So forgive me if I don't buy your claim to care mostly about the "mechanics of politics" in this case. I'll stick with "Joph knows he's wrong here, and doesn't want to argue a losing position". You're free to delude yourself about your own motivations though. :)
Quote:
Quote:
Our founding fathers didn't write the constitution to tell us what the government should do with its power. There isn't a single word in their about policy or direction. They wrote it entirely to tell us "how" it should use power. Specifically, it tells us how the government should not use that power.
As I said, you're more interested in rhetoric. It was polite of you to illustrate it so clearly.
If by rhetoric you mean "well spoken/written" then I'll take it as a compliment. If you mean rhetoric as "empty words", then I'm a bit confused how you think the document this nation was founded on is just empty words. If they don't matter, then what does? You seem to care about the outcome of the supreme court, but why would you if you don't apparently think that the words in the constitution really matter anyway?
Seems strange. To me, rhetoric is arguing for a health care bill because "40 Million people don't have health insurance!!!" and "we need to think of our children!". That's rhetoric. Talking about the principles written into the constitution is *not* just rhetoric.
Quote:
Quote:
And if it is, then that's kinda strange, given that the positions you hold are overwhelmingly argued on pure emotional appeal.
Really? I'm not the one insinuating that if you don't see things the same way I do, you're failing our poor Founding Fathers.
You're kidding, right? The bulk of the political agenda you support rests completely on emotional appeals. Feed the hungry! House the homeless! This is unfair! That is unfair! Let's make things fair!!!
Oh. And don't look at *how* we make things fair. Just focus on the need to do "something".
My side looks at the effects of those actions Joph. We oppose those things, not because we hate the poor, or the hungry, or minorities, or women, but because we disagree with the methods your side proposes to address those things. Methods like providing health care to more people, by creating a mandate that everyone must purchase health care, which represents a massive stretch of government intrusion into our lives. Your side gets so caught up in the emotional importance of what they are doing, they don't stop to consider the side effects.
This is one of them. A mandate like the one contained in this bill is an assault on personal liberty. It's not emotional to point this out. It's a rational analysis of the effect of something that runs counter to the strong emotions used to push it through. The people want "health care now!". They act irrationally in the pursuit of it, and we all lose a little bit of liberty (or a lot in this case). The conservatives may become emotional about their position, but their position is not based on emotion. It's based on rationalism.