Remember when gas was 30-40 cents per gallon cheaper than it is now?
Remember back in December when all we heard was if we'd elect the right senators in the GA run off, that we'd have a COVID stimulus ready for Biden on his first day in office?
Remember when people "desperately" needed a $2,000 stimulus check?
Remember when people "desperately" needed $2000/month?
Remember when we weren't bombing Syria?
Yeah, those were good times.
But at least we fixed that damn sexist plastic potato, made the world safe again.
59 comments:
So, on the stimulus package, is this a criticism of McConnell and the GOP blocking what the Democrats are trying to do?
Remember when the former trainwreck of a president had almost no plan for covid or vaccine distribution?
Remember when he constantly undermined and attacked the experts trying to work around his misadministration?
Yeah, I don't miss that at all.
I must have missed hearing that the GOP controls the senate now? I guess that when Biden said that voting for the "correct" GA senate candidates would ensure a stimulus bill on his first day on office, that he must have been confused or something.
Or, I guess one could say that the US Senate is a place where there is no expectation of negotiation or compromise any more.
Maybe. my point is, that Biden over promised and is under delivering or that all the talk about how "desperate" people were was political bloviating.
FYI, isn't the DFL trying to put a bunch of spending in this stimulus for people who've been "desperate" since December, that is slated for fiscal "21 and '22? Aren't there line items in this urgent bill that aren't related to COVID or helping those who have been "desperate" since December? Wouldn't a more focused bill that takes care of short term needs be a better option?
FYI, how about states like DFL controlled MN who are taxing small business owners on their forgiven PPP loans as if they were income?
Oh, what is it with the DFL surrounding public buildings with fences, and razor wire? Is that really a good look?
Excellent, tactic. Focus on Trump who's not POTUS any more to take attention away from Biden. Well done?
Aren't these experts that ones who said that Thrum was full of crap when he said we'd have a vaccine before the end of 2020? The same experts who said that Remdizovere (sp?) wasn't effective? The same experts who changed their stance on masks regularly?
Remember when Cuomo lied about putting COVID positive people in nursing homes, and then made some callous remarks about their deaths? Those were good times.
Look, I get it. Any small acknowledgement of Biden's less than stellar term up to this point is hard to hear. I guess it's why left leaning media outlets are still devoting so much air time to Trump.
Bombs away!!!!!
I get the point and appreciate it, but I'm not sure we can hang the sudden rise in gas prices on the president. There are several reasons and they don't include the president. (Amusingly, one is that stimulus checks increase spending which raises prices.)
"As to quomo, it goes without saying that what he did was wrong and he should be held accountable. Because of course he should be held accountable. Because we are a party that supports holding people accountable for wrong actions."
Really? I guess we'll see. I seem to remember you saying similar things about Northam and he got off unscathed.
"In contrast to the Trump Party. By the way, do you see the golden idol they've put up of trump in your CPAc convention?"
Nope, because I'm politically homeless at the moment, and I'm not obsessed with Trump.
"Does it not shame you?"
Why should it, I had nothing to do with it, don't know who did, don't want to restrict free speech (no matter whether or not I agree with it, because that's how the constitution works), don't have any affiliation with that organization, and didn't complain when they paraded a statue of George Floyd through the streets for people to worship.
"Why in the hell are you not condemning to High Heavens this atrocity? This blasphemy?"
Because I believe that people have the right to freedom of association, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech. I didn't bitch when some moron pretended that a crucifix in piss was art, I'm not going to get worked up now. Or did you think we are in Iran where blasphemy is a crime?
"Y'all have sold yourselves literally to a devil and the ones of you who are not bowing out right to that devil are remaining silent and are complicit in your silence. Repent you sinners. Tear down that Golden Idol. God have mercy on your souls."
That's quite a charge. I'd ask for proof, but you've got none.
"Look, you don't get it. You have been virtually silent throughout the Trainwreck of Trump's presidency and now you're starting to nitpick Biden cuz he's not making fast enough progress?"
Nope, and nope. I'm more about mocking all the folks like you who believed his bullshit, and are going to give him a pass no matter what.
"B*******. B*******. To hell with you. The hypocrisy, the rank pieocracy of the GOP stinks to high heaven. Just shut the hell up and get out of the way so the adults can do important work."
Yup, this is how adults talk and act, exactly like this.
"We are tired of the GOP being the obstructionist party."
So you were OK with the DFL being the obstructionist party, you just don't want the GOP to actually do anything to stop y'all from doing whatever you want. Got it. Maybe y'all should just shoot 'em all.
"We are tired of the GOP being the racist party."
I've asked for direct unambiguous proof of this before, and haven't gotten any, I doubt I will now.
"We are tired of the GOP being the party beholden to the wealthy and operating on behalf of the wealthy."
Hell, your socialist presidential candidate was a millionaire. Gates, Bezos, Buffett, Weinstein, Bloomburg, and I could go on. Hell the Clintons, Obamas, and Bidens have used their positions to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars. But you just ignore the data.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2020/02/18/here-are-the-billionaires-funding-the-democratic-presidential-candidates/?sh=25cc067133f7
"We are tired of the GOP being the insurrectionist party."
Ok, keep up this trope.
"If you can't get on the right side of History, get the hell out of the way. That's what you're not understanding. The adults have work to do. And your constant whining and lies and falsehoods and defense of reprehensible Behavior is a stone weighing around your necks. Release that stone, repent, or get out the way"
The "right side of history" argument is simply the height of hubris.
Stan, I agree. I added this more because blaming presidents for gas prices is something that's been done for a while, It's more about mockery than anything else.
Stan,
It doesn't matter who's responsible for gas prices, I'm still not a fan of prices heading up.
I looked at Stan's link and find it wanting. I seem to recall gas prices falling for quite a few years until the election and Keystone played a good part of it. Conversely, by shutting it down, I believe the link tries to dance around the impact of doing so. It simply didn't start to rise in my area until right after the bastard shut it down.
In the meantime, Danny-boy continues his desperate, but wholly unsupported attacks on the Trump administration...one that has been far more beneficial for all Americans than what his favored Barry Obumble produced. Sad and pathetic, but that's our Danny-boy!
If the unbuilt Keystone Pipeline has any effect on gas prices it has nothing to do with actual supply and demand. The pausing of construction might have triggered some sort of change in future expectations, but it's certainly not an actual factor in current gas prices.
I suspect that there are multiple factors driving the increase, some of which might be laid at Biden's feet.
Dan, and many on the left, are obsessed with looking backward and obsessing over the past, instead of moving forward. Hell, if CNN and CNBC stopped filling their programming with Trump crap, their dismal rating would dry up.
To be fair, I suspect that you'd find lots of things that might not blame Biden for everything "wanting", unfortunately there's noting to be done about that.
"If the unbuilt Keystone Pipeline has any effect on gas prices it has nothing to do with actual supply and demand."
Well, actually it does. It's the means of getting supply to where demand is. But pricing at the pumps is always based on what they believe supply will be like in the future and as such, speculation includes a variety of factors, actual and potential.
But given how steady and low prices at the pump had been prior to the election, speculation as to how Biden will affect oil supplies means he is indeed responsible for increases. I doubt many in the industry, or speculators dealing in the industry, have any illusions regarding Biden as a negative influence upon the industry.
Exactly my point. The current gas prices are based on current and short term future supply and demand. The Keystone pipeline was years away from completion before Biden did his thing. The effect of the Keystone pipeline on current gas prices is minuscule if anything. I know that it's possible that Biden will have indirect effects on gas prices, I'd be more concerned about how his apparent desire to go back to conflict instead of peace in the Middle East will affect prices, than the delay of Keystone. OF course, the fact that Biden thinks that he can impose his will on a project that has gone through all of the state and federal approval processes, is probably the most disturbing aspect of this. This increasing move the a presidency of unilateral executive orders is a serious concern. One of the features of the US form of government was continuity. The fact that decisions are supposed to be made by the legislature as a way to control capricious reversals of policy every time a new president takes office, instead of unilaterally, would seem to raise questions about any agreements that the US enters into. What is the next agreement Biden or his successors will void on a whim?
He has taken it to a new level, that's for sure. And I think Trump proved your point as his initial EO's were reversals of Obama EO's, which clearly were to side-step congressional objection to his goals.
Yes. One of the hallmarks of our FOG has always been consistently across administrations. When things are legislated (in theory) you end up with bipartisan compromise and legislation that everyone can live with (mostly anyway). That makes it difficult to reverse course frequently. With this recent trend of governing by EO, we’re seeing that continuity replaced with capriciousness.
What, for example, would be the ramifications of Biden simply signed an EO that removed us from NATO? I’m not saying that NATO is sacred, but that sort of capricious reversal as an EO, would have worldwide repercussions that deserve to be debated in a legislature. It’s also absurd to send the message worldwide that the US is going to make these sorts of policy swings at the whim of 1 person.
I’m certainly not singling out Biden, I don’t remember this sort of rule by EO being a big issue before P-BO, and Trump was certainly guilty of it as well. This notion that “the other guys did it”, just doesn’t seem presidential or healthy. At some point, we need a president who’ll be presidential about this and try legislating instead of ruling.
I'm opposed to EOs, as a rule.
And yet, when action NEEDS to be taken (on immigration, for instance, or a pandemic or racist oppression, for instance) AND Congress is too broke to legislate action, THEN I support the president issuing an EO. But it should be rare and only in case of emergency/urgent need.
To the degree that Obama and Biden have issued EOs in lieu of Congress failing to take action on urgent, immediate concerns, I support it, but do so sadly. I'd much rather have a functioning Congress. But when one side (the GOP) commits to not letting the "other side" pass anything and are determined to be obstructionist (as McConnell vowed with Obama), I don't know what else to do.
We NEED to take action on climate change issues and that NEEDS to happen in Congress. But if Congress fails to step up, I support limited EO actions.
Same for the pandemic, same for immigration, same for some justice issues.
Trump's EOs, sadly, were often for the "emergency" of making life easier for big businesses and harder for oppressed groups or people in need. Those, I am opposed to.
Also, a lot of Trump's executive orders were not emergency based. They were often times just fluff. A way to appeal to his followers and a way for Trump to act like he's got power. I'm quite certain and appealed to the fascist narcissist in him.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-executive-orders-ineffective-20190327-story.html%3f_amp=true
Re... don't remember this sort of rule by EO being a big issue before Obama...
Presidents have long issued executive orders, dozens a year, oftentimes.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders
... and as you can see from the link I provided you, Obama averaged out fewer executive orders than Reagan Bush and Bush and Trump. Just FYI. I'm curious, did the large number of executive orders bother you under Reagan Bush and Bush?
Indeed. The whole idea was supposed to make change slow because of deliberation...the coming together of disparate interests to find that common ground someone likes to pretend he supports, and thereby legislate in a manner most acceptable to the most people possible. EOs totally sidestep these debates to force the will of the president upon a nation not necessarily in agreement on that which the EO mandates. It's despotism...not "democracy" or anything like it.
“ support limited EO actions.”
Do you support Biden’s flurry of EO’s immediately upon taking office, not even making the appearance of an attempt to pursue legislation?
Craig... "Do you support Biden’s flurry of EO’s immediately upon taking office, not even making the appearance of an attempt to pursue legislation?"
Is that question directed to me? My answer is, I don't know the details on all of Biden's executive orders. I would need to know the details.
I know a good number of them - nearly half...? - were simply overturning Trump's awful executive orders. I support that fully and without a bit of hesitation. Beyond that, I would need to know the details.
Are you condemning Trump for all of his EOs? How about the ones he did could benefit corporate businesses in deregulate?
Do you see why rational people concerned with Justice might be more forgiving for executive orders designed to alleviate suffering of the oppressed and marginalized over and against those that try to enrich wealthy corporations?
So, here's one of Biden's EOs...
"Executive order to promote racial equity
Biden ordered his government to conduct equity assessments of its agencies and reallocate resources to “advanc[e] equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.”
This isn't passing law, as should be done by Congress. It's investigating the very real problem of racial equity. This is reasonable. I support it.
Are you okay with this or would you want to see it undone for some reason? And, if so, why would you want to see it undone?
Another Biden EO:
"Executive order requiring mask-wearing on federal property
Biden has mandated mask-wearing and social distancing on all federal properties. While the president lacks the authority to institute a nationwide mask mandate, the order also “encourage[s] masking across America.”
I'm also fine with that one. You?
Another:
"Executive order incorporating undocumented immigrants into census
Undocumented immigrants will be counted in the national decennial population count, according to Biden’s order, which overturned Trump’s attempt to exclude them during the 2020 census."
Fine with this. Trump attempted to NOT do what the Census is supposed to do and Biden fixed Trump's attempt to not count certain people. Fine with it. You?
Another:
"Executive order mandating ethics pledge for government appointees
On the heels of Trump’s midnight bid to reverse ethics commitments for executive branch employees, Biden signed an order requiring all government appointees to sign an ethics pledge prohibiting the acceptance of gifts from registered lobbyists and lobbying for at least two years after exiting the government."
Support this. You?
...like that. As I review his EOs, I'm not seeing attempts to legislate through EO. I'm seeing commonsense gov't actions from an appropriate source.
My source for the above list...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/here-s-full-list-biden-s-executive-actions-so-far-n1255564
My recent practice has been to take Dan's comments, dissect them, parse them, and deal with his comments and questions in small chunks. Since his previous 6 comments are all basically repeating himself, I see no reason to do so. I can address the majority of them by making 2 points.
1. "I don't remember this sort of rule by EO being a big issue before Obama..." This statement, is NOT a claim that no president before P-BO issued EO's, it is simply pointing out that I don't remember either of the Bush's or Clinton using EO's as a way to circumvent the legislative process. I was quite clear that I WAS NOT making a blanket claim of fact, I WAS NOT claiming to have done research, I was going by what I remembered. No more, no less.
2. I thought it was clear that my objection was to EO's issued in lieu of attempting to work through the legislative process, not merely the number of EO's. I'm aware that many EO's are simply proclamations or something else. I'm not objecting to those, only to using EO's as a substitute for legislating.
"But when one side (the GOP)"
You do know that the DFL has been just as guilty of this as the GOP, don't you? This notion that it's one sided is simply absurd.
"did the large number of executive orders bother you under Reagan Bush and Bush?"
1. It's not the quantity of EO's, it's the nature of EO's that I have a problem with.
2. If Regan, Bush, Bush, and Clinton were using EO's instead of legislating, then yes. If they were not, then no. I know this is hard for you to understand, but I'm stating a principle. Therefore any POTUS who does things that go against the principle (substituting EO's for legislating) is engaging in actions I don't agree with, the party of the POTUS is irrelevant to this discussion.
"Are you condemning Trump for all of his EOs?"
1. I've addressed the principle of this multiple times, do I need to repeat it again?
2. I don't know the details on all of Trump's executive orders. I would need to know the details.
"How about the ones he did could benefit corporate businesses in deregulate?"
1. As a general rule, I believe that less regulation is better then more regulation, so (without specifics) I can't give a vague, broad, blanket answer.
2. As a business owner (not currently incorporated, but likely will be within the year), I have no problem with removing cumbersome regulations when appropriate.
3. The executive branch of government, has the constitutional authority to issue and suspend some regulations, therefore it is possible/likely that those EO's would not contradict the principle I've espoused. Obviously, if they did, I might have problems with them.
4. This notion that all deregulation is automatically bad, and that anything that "benefits corporations" is to be opposed, is bizarre.
"Do you see why rational people concerned with Justice might be more forgiving for executive orders designed to alleviate suffering of the oppressed and marginalized over and against those that try to enrich wealthy corporations?"
In a general, theoretical, sense (absent any specific examples), I could see this. Of course, just because people feel a certain way doesn't make them objectively right.
"Are you okay with this or would you want to see it undone for some reason?"
Absent the details, it's hard to say. Again, if it's aimed specifically at the executive branch, I have no problem in principle.
"And, if so, why would you want to see it undone?"
Again, absent any details, I couldn't really answer this.
"I'm also fine with that one. You?"
I'm sure you are. Again, this doesn't violate the principle I've been articulating".
"Fine with this. Trump attempted to NOT do what the Census is supposed to do and Biden fixed Trump's attempt to not count certain people. Fine with it. You?"
1. Per the principle I've articulated, no I'm not "fine with this".
2. This is an issue that should be legislated, not handled by and EO.
3. Census data is used to allocate seats in congress, it seems that adding additional congressional seats based on a population that doesn't have the right to vote is problematic.
4. This is part of a much larger discussion that has been avoided for years.
"Support this. You?"
Again, absent details, this seems consistent with the principle I've advocated.
There, I was able to answer your questions, while wasting as little time as possible.
Craig... "Census data is used to allocate seats in congress, it seems that adding additional congressional seats based on a population that doesn't have the right to vote is problematic."
Good lord. Well it may be problematic for YOU, but it's not rationally problematic nor is it problematic from a Justice point of view, and it's not constitutionally problematic. That's how the Constitution was written to count ALL the people in all the states. Even the people who couldn't vote. And of course, there were many more of those who couldn't vote back then, but they still got to be counted because they were still being represented. Of course.
The census is meant to count CITIZENS of a country, county, city, etc. Illegal aliens are not citizens and should not be counted...PERIOD! LEGAL immigrants is another story. But consider a foreign visitor. He shows up on census day. Is he to be counted, when he's only staying for the week? Illegals, ostensibly, are temporary as well...once they're caught, then they're deported. This makes the argument of including illegal aliens incredibly foolish, as is the obvious corruption of an illegal having an effect on future legislation. It would be no different than any foreigner impacting our laws even if they never set foot on American soil. They don't belong because they're illegally here, and as such they are not at all...in any way imaginable...deserving of legislative representation. Trump's EO simply clarified this idea of who it is who should/could be counted. EOs are often used to clarify existing law, and that's what Trump's EO on this issue did. Biden reversed it in order to acquire more votes. Trump put Americans first, Biden puts his party...and foreigners...first.
I am undecided on the question of legal non-citizens. The length of their stay specifically as it again goes to the question of a foreigner here on vacation during a census. I'm not sure I feel length of stay matters if one isn't a citizen.
Dan definitely does his typical hate the rich dance, as if being wealthy means considerations can't be made in their favor ever, particularly when they are experiencing unequal treatment.
And that goes to the stupidity of "equity", as if focusing on it is a good idea. It is not. "Equality" is what government should protect because it means we're treated the same. "Equity" does not. Equity focuses on equality of outcomes. It's a standard that can never be met and is disastrous from the start. Only lefties find it alluring because they aren't intelligent people. Lefty politicians know this and exploit it for votes.
"Regarding counting all people being problematic... Just to be clear, the Constitution requires counting all people. If it's problematic for you, then you're going to have to change the Constitution. Why you would want to not count all people who are actually living in a place, whether or not they can vote, raises questions about your intention and why you find it problematic. "...The Constitution explicitly requires an “actual Enumeration” of “all persons,” imposing on the federal government the duty to count the “whole number of persons in each State.” Both Republican and Democratic administrations, through the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), have confirmed unequivocally..."
My bad, I misspoke in an effort to use my time more effectively. Unfortunately, I should have known that you'd choose this one instance pounce on my misstatement.
My objection is with states that intentionally encourage non citizen immigration for the purpose of stacking the legislature.
I don't have time to dig into your Emancipation Proclamation comment, but I'll say this quickly.
1. The fact that you had to go back well over a hundred years for an example, is quite telling, and seems to support my point.
2. The Emancipation Proclamation was a great example of an "EO" that was more of a PR move than a substantive effort.
3. While I agree with the idea behind the EP, I'm not sure it was particularly effective as anything but a symbolic gesture.
Marshal... "The census is meant to count CITIZENS of a country, county, city, etc. Illegal aliens are not citizens and should not be counted...PERIOD."
But this is just Constitutionally wrong. Right, Craig?
Craig... "My objection is with states that intentionally encourage non citizen immigration for the purpose of stacking the legislature..."
? Does this happen? Do you have some laser sure to cite to support this claim? I've never heard of any such thing happening in the real world oh, that maybe I missed the news. Can you show me where Alabama or Georgia, for instance encouraged non-citizens to come to stack the legislature? Do they do this on Facebook? What does it look like?
OR, is this just a case of a wild fear not based on anything that's happening in the world? I know this is the thing that many conservatives do, probably based on their brain biology and having that enlarged fear Center oh, so I won't be sensitive to that. But I also want to make the distinction between things that are actual problems in the world world vs fantasy problems that don't really exist.
Marshal... "Equity focuses on equality of outcomes. It's a standard that can never be met and is disastrous from the start. "
So, just to be clear, equality would be treating everyone exactly the same. If there our steps leading up to your businesses door then everybody can use those steps to get in and that would be equal. It would be equal, but it would keep people in wheelchairs, for instance, out. So it would be equal, but it would not be equitable.
This is a standard, of course, which CAN be met. And I want to be equitable not merely have everything equal. Because equal is not always equitable. I want Justice, not just same-ness... not one-size-fits-all, because one size does not fit all. Justice and equity, not a blind equality.
Are you two actually opposed to this sort of equity?
Dan,
If, as you claim, we agree why don’t you just agree and stop? Why keep on with things to disagree about? Why not just accept the agreement and move on?
"Marshal... "The census is meant to count CITIZENS of a country, county, city, etc. Illegal aliens are not citizens and should not be counted...PERIOD."
But this is just Constitutionally wrong. Right, Craig?"
No. It's only wrong if we agree with the lefty corruption of the intent of the founders. Representation was determined by actual citizens, or those counted as such. Note the "three-fifths" clause, whereby slaves, regarded as property by those who enslaved them, were only allowed to count only three out of five for the purpose of representation. The other two were still living in the state, weren't they?
Then of course there were tribes not paying taxes. They, too, lived in the state but were not counted. Clearly, these two facts indicate that the total number of people actually and literally living in a state was not the sole basis for counting people for the purpose of representation. Visitors "live" in the state they're visiting, but are not citizens. Illegal aliens are not allowed to remain when caught, and thus to count them in order to add another congressman is dishonest at the very least. I would add legal aliens who have yet to establish themselves as citizens should also not be counted. What's the purpose of representation but to be a voice for the citizens of the nation?
"So, just to be clear, equality would be treating everyone exactly the same. If there our steps leading up to your businesses door then everybody can use those steps to get in and that would be equal."
So the problem here is, is this just another lame attempt of Dan's to create a decent analogy to make his point, or Dan's ignorance of or decent in explaining the difference between "quality" and "equity" and why the latter is worth a damn?
The question isn't how one is able to enter, but the fact that all have access. One's inability to enter isn't the issue because of the myriad possible reasons why one is lacking in that regard. But lack of ability doesn't mean one is denied the right to enter. What if a person is too fat to get through the door? The fact that the door was built with normal-sized people in mind does not mean the intent was to prevent the obese from entry. So your understanding of equality/equity is as lame as the demand for equity itself.
Equality means everyone, even dumbasses like Dan, has a right to their opinion. Equity means Dan's dumbass opinion must be regarded as of equal value as the opinions of smart people regardless of just how stupid Dan's opinion is.
Equality means all are afforded the same opportunity to achieve to whatever the extent their abilities and determination can move them. Equity means all must achieve the same level of success regardless of their abilities and determination.
Equality means each person is treated the same under the law regardless of their race, sex, ethnic background, etc. Equity means one's race, sex, ethnic background entitles them to special treatment based on those traits.
Equality means the law will arrest you for rioting. Period. Equity means leftist asshats will pretend you have a good reason for destroying your community.
" Did you read my words? I clearly stated the same principle. We appear to agree, you and I, that executive orders in lieu of Congress legislating, is in theory, not good... it's less than ideal."
"The Emancipation Proclamation, for instance, where Lincoln gave up waiting on Congress to fix the slavery issue and free slaves."
This statement is factually inaccurate in several aspects.
1. The EP didn't actually free any slaves immediately.
2. Congress had, and was prepared to enact more legislation to free slaves.
3. Lincoln decided that congress didn't have the authority to free the slaves in territory controlled by the CSA, therefore he made the EP under his war powers as the CinC of the military.
4. The EP specifically DID NOT free any slaves in territory controlled by the US.
5. While the EP was a great EO, with the best of motives, it was largely symbolic at the time, and is not a good example of your point.
"Do you agree that this is a good example of a good exception to the general principle EOs ought not be used for legislating?"
Actually, no. I think it's actually a bad example.
" Then perhaps you live in a world that believes in the innate goodness I've corporations to always do the right thing, or even always know what the right thing to do is?"
1. Despite the ?, this doesn't actually appear to be a question.
2. This bears absolutely no relationship to what I actually said.
3. Corporations are inanimate and therefore have no innate goodness. The humans who run corporations are, while fallen and sinful like everyone else, can and do use corporations for acts of goodness.
4. Corporations are not an evil monolith, they vary in many significant ways. This notion that all corporations will engage in bad actions is still bizarre.
"Given the very real reality of pollution and worker abuse, to give two examples, I am not naive that way."
Of course rational people can acknowledge that virtually NO ONE is calling for a complete elimination of ALL regulations on corporations. Therefore, rational people can acknowledge that some regulation is necessary, and that some regulation might have been necessary at one time, but aren't necessary now.
"It is prudent, not bizarre to have reasonable regulation to protect innocent people."
Since you're misrepresenting what I said, I see no value in wasting time.
"And oh, for the record, I never said and now I am not saying that all deregulation is bad. If someone can make the case that regulations that was put into place is not needed, but of course I'm supportive of that sort of T regulation."
Oh, so once again, we actually agree. You just decided to present your agreement in a way to made it seem like we disagree.
"I think that again, it would be exceedingly naive to think that Trump and his team looked at the regulations in question and did the research and found out that they weren't needed."
Trump isn't president anymore. But please keep your focus on the past.
" To seek clarification? Because you speak in vague terms and I'm not sure that we agree?"
If only you'd give others the courtesy of answering their questions when they're trying to sort through your vague, contradictory, and obfuscatory bullshit.
"To seek additional information? To better understand your position?"
Again, I answer your questions, you ignore the vast majority of mine. It's just your double standards at work.
"Because you've raised other points and made other allegations that I am wanting to know more about?"
Yet, given your past history, you'll ignore the answers no matter how long and detailed, and falsely claim that I never answer you. If it weren't for double standards, you'd have no standards at all.
"For instance, your claim that some states are trying to lure immigrants to their state to allocate seats in the Congress. That's quite a claim. I'm wondering if there's anything to it or if it's just a made-up fear, not grounded in reality in any way at all."
You're right, it's just a coincidence that some states are choosing to flaunt immigration law as a means to attract those who are violating immigration law. I'm sure it's just a coincidence. I can't believe that good hearted WL's would actually stoop to using illegal immigrants for their own political benefit.
"Is seeking to understand you better and more fully understand your position a bad thing?"
If only you showed any evidence that you were actually trying to do so, it would be different. But since all I see is you ignoring my answers, misrepresenting my answers/positions, mischaracterizing what I've said, and occasionally simply creating falsehoods, I find your actions at odds with your words.
Maybe if you'd actually respond when I answer your questions, or at least acknowledge that I have. Maybe if you'd take the time to go through and parse things like I do, answering questions, and responding contemporaneously. Unfortunately, that's rarely the case.
Art,
I hate to say it, but the language of the constitution is pretty clear, and it doesn't agree with you.
As far as equity/equality, it's simply a matter of using whichever word seems most likely to achieve a certain goal, while ultimately trying to make them synonyms that mean both everything and nothing specific simultaneously.
I agree with the opportunity/outcomes distinction in theory, in reality it does mean that some people will need to have disproportionate help getting started so that they can use their abilities and determination to the fullest. The problem is that it's too broadly targeted. Clearly multiple groups of "immigrants of color" outperform all other ethnic groups (including whites) significantly. It seems stupid to give advantages to those groups (based solely on skin color), when doing so takes away resources from groups (including rural whites) who actually don't fare as well economically.
The language of the Constitution must be understood as it was when ratified. If it disagrees with me, I don't see how. The following is from census.gov:
"Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution mandates that an apportionment of representatives among the states must be carried out every 10 years. Therefore, apportionment is the original legal purpose of the decennial census, as intended by our Nation's Founders.
Apportionment is the process of dividing the 435 memberships, or seats, in the U.S. House of Representatives among the 50 states, based on the state population counts that result from each decennial census."
Would you like to have your representation lessened due to another state having people living there who are only visiting, not legally entitled to be there or are not even citizens for whom representatives exist? What makes you think that's what the founders had in mind? Seems pretty clear to me that in forming our government, they had the benefit of the governed in mind, not anyone else.
What's more, given the problems with illegal aliens, if we're just counting whoever's in the house as opposed to who belongs in the house, we'll be spending more money we don't have on people not entitled to any. I just can't see how regardless of the wording, that's what the Constitution is saying.
As to equity, to whom we dole out help so they can use their abilities and determination is a very subjective goal which has no way to clearly define any limitations. For government, that's a bad thing indeed. For the people themselves, each can decide to whom their charitable donations should go. That's how it should be. Of course, if our "covid" stimulus bills didn't give away so much scratch to foreigners, we might be able to provide for those needing "disproportionate" help getting started.
"which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed,"
Whole number of free persons, clearly doesn't limit to count to citizens, sorry.
I agree that, and I made the point that, there are states that are trying to entice illegals to settle in them, which will be used to determine the apportionment of representatives. That pisses me off because it dilutes to meaning of citizenship. I completely agree that it sucks, but "whole number of free persons" seems pretty unambiguous to me.
I agree that government (especially at a national level) is absolutely, horribly, unsuited to make those kinds of determinations and provide that sort of help. Inevitably it ends up being based on broad criteria and ends up benefiting a significant number of people who don"t need the help, and not necessarily being the most appropriate help for everyone. For example, race based quotas for college. How does it help a kid to get a leg up to college if college isn't the right path for them? How does two tears of debt and no degree help anyone?
I think their might be a role for government funding, but feel like it should be through bock grants or something that will allow decisions to be made more locally and better targeted.
Marshal... "Would you like to have your representation lessened due to another state having people living there who are only visiting, not legally entitled to be there or are not even citizens for whom representatives exist? "
Yes. But then, I'm not a dick. I'm not a fascist. I want all the people living in my state to be represented, not just the landed white men, you piece of s***.
You're way off in delusional racist land, Marshal. Ask any constitutional scholar.
Craig... "I agree that, and I made the point that, there are states that are trying to entice illegals to settle in them,"
You made a CLAIM. An empty and unsupported CLAIM. You did NOT make the point. You specifically and literally did not make the point. An unsupported claim is not making a point. From all that we can see, it's just a stupidly false claim and when asked to support it, you've dodged.
Sadly, this is a trait common to modern conservatives like Trump and other con men and Liars.
"An unsupported claim is not making a point."
I'll defer to you on this since you do it so often. I'm drawing a conclusion based on the evidence I've seen and expressing my opinion about it.
If you want to get into a semantic argument about the difference between a point and a claim, do it somewhere else.
Maybe you could start catching up on unanswered questions first.
Craig... " I'm drawing a conclusion based on the evidence I've seen and expressing my opinion about it."
But you can't even begin to cite what "evidence" you've seen. And it sounds like another conspiracy theory. Do you recognize that makes it seem more like you're either lying or delusional, as opposed to actually have something to support your insane-sounding claim?
You see, conservatives have increasingly painted themselves as the party of wild conspiracy theories and you're just lacking credibility with the rest of the world. I GET that, in groups of people who already believe your insane conspiracy theories, you may sound believable. But you're preaching to the choir there.
Be prepared to give a defense for what you believe.
Why should I do what you won’t. Hell, I answer question after question, and you don’t reciprocate.
Once again, Dan proves himself to be no Christian, choosing based on only his own moral bankruptcy to pretend my position has any racist component. Our representatives are elected to serve us and our fellow Americans. That's their purpose...their reason for existing. I don't know about Dan, but MY fellow Americans are of many races and ethnicities. They come in both sexes. I can't imagine how moronic one has to be in order to believe our congressmen should represent non-citizens and worse, those with no desire to be American. Which Constitutional scholar can confirm the founders had that in mind? I'll wait here while no one produces one.
Craig... " I answer question after question, and you don’t reciprocate. "
I know you THINK that, but you're just factually mistaken. In the real world, I answer your questions at more than twice the rate that you answer mine, I'd be willing to bet. The difference is, when I answer your questions, you don't understand that I HAVE answered your questions. When you REPLY to my questions, you don't understand that you have not answered my question, but some other question that I didn't ask... or otherwise, just didn't answer the question close to directly.
Ahhhhhh, I think it goes beyond a straw man fallacy when one creates an alternate reality, perhaps we should call this the Bizarro World logical fallacy.
A world where answers aren’t answers, and failing to acknowledge (let alone answer) questions becomes the norm.
Please, provide proof of this claim. With your superior intellect and vast ability to Reason, surely you can do better than simply making unsupported assertions and pretending that they’re true, can’t you. Is this nonsense really the best you can offer?
Art,
You raise an interesting point. While I believe that our government should “represent” non citizens in some sense, I agree that prioritizing non citizens over citizens is an abdication of governmental responsibility. Like many things this could be interesting to discuss, if the emotion, vitriol, and partisanship could be held in check.
I will agree to this much: if non-citizens are victims of criminal behavior, I don't believe law enforcement should refuse to enforce the law. But that's not government representation. That's just enforcing the law. As an example, an illegal alien being murdered, robbed or raped is still a victim of those crimes just as any American would be. But raising the amount of tax dollars for a state based upon its population having been inflated by a million illegals is an abuse.
Art,
Much like your example, most of what government does for citizens, benefits non citizens/visitors as well.
For example, we’ve all see the evidence of trash, drug paraphernalia, human waste, and more on the public areas of SF and other cities, we’ve seen the video evidence of rat infestations in Baltimore, and we’ve seen the precipitous rise in crime in cities since last year’s anti police protests. If government was providing these basic services well, it benefits everyone. However, if there is a choice between providing services beyond the basics, then citizens should be the priority. If there are resources, then non citizens should be offered aid as necessary. Again, I think there’s an interesting discussion in there somewhere past the partisan posturing and the talking points.
I’ll say that it’s interesting to see how the states that have gone out of the way to attract illegal immigrants, are also the states where we’re seeing significant quality of life issues. Not that immigrants are trashing CA, but that CA is failing to address many basic service issues and is driving people away.
Like you, I wouldn't try to insist that illegals or other non-citizens are the reason for all our ills. But still, despite how all are affected by bad behaviors of ANY who live in a given state, that still doesn't justify artificially inflated amounts of money or representation provoked by the presence of illegals and other non-citizens.
I’ll just note that Dan’s choice to use a quote of mine to justify his screed on EO’s does an excellent job of using my words as a straw man to justify his ranting.
"Living the Golden Rule imperfectly does not mean (does not insist) that we disregard the Golden Rule as a rule. Correct?"
I have absolutely zero way to measure the correctness of this claim, which leads me to conclude that it's just one one unproven hunch that you made up to support your other unproven hunches. If you think it's correct, then prove it to be correct.
" How many times would I need to say "morality is not objectively provable... it is subjective in that sense... and that's true for your ideas of morality and for mine" for you to understand it? And of course, morality depends upon the context. Do you disagree?"
You can say those things as often as you like, neither addresses the fact that you appear to be advocating a subjective morality, but want to operate as if it's an objective morality, without actually just saying directly that you advocate for a subjective morality. Why you can't just say the words, "I believe that morality is subjective." is beyond me.
"Do you disagree?"
With what? If driving drunk is immoral (something you haven't proven), then it's immoral. What you seem to be arguing is that there might be extenuating circumstances that make an immoral action necessary, or the lesser of two evils. You haven't offered any rational reason why the immoral magically becomes moral.
"No. it doesn't. It MIGHT if the population of those nations voted in favor of slavery. Did they?"
Don't know, don't care. You are arguing that a majority of the world believes as you do in this "golden rule" subjective moral code. I'm arguing that the very presence of legal slavery, legal prostitution, execution for being gay, etc, in large numbers of nations undercuts your claim. You made the original claim, it's your job to prove that the counter evidence is wrong.
"Or are these from more authoritarian type nations?"
Does it matter?
"Do you see your problem?"
No, if slavery is a universal, moral wrong according to your hunch about moral codes, then the presence of legal slavery across half the nations in the world, and illegal slavery in large numbers elsewhere, doesn't pose a problem to anyone except you. You are asserting a claim based on an appeal to numbers logical fallacy, if the evidence doesn't support your claim or calls it into question, then the problem is yours not mine.
"Do you understand your error?"
No, the error is you misrepresenting my "claim" with one you've made up.
" Do you understand your mistake?"
Just because you misrepresent what I've said, and call it a "mistake" doesn't mean that a mistake actually exists. But, feel free to start by proving your original claim, before you misrepresent my data to demonstrate that your claim is unlikely to be true. This is one of the problems with these sorts of vague appeals to numbers, they're pretty easily undermined with actual data.
Craig...
"Why you can't just say the words, "I believe that morality is subjective." is beyond me."
I've explained why. It's quite simple. I'll explain why yet again.
I believe that morality is probably objective. It is WRONG to kill someone. OBJECTIVELY, I believe. It is WRONG to enslave someone, objectively, I believe.
I BELIEVE that morality is likely OBJECTIVE in nature. There are some things that are objectively wrong.
As I've stated in the past.
The problem is, we have no way to OBJECTIVELY PROVE our opinions about morality. I may think it is abundantly obvious that it is wrong to kill or enslave someone, but how do I objectively prove it? I can't. YOU can't. No one can, not that I can see.
Shall we appeal to some authority? Okay. Who?
GOD? Okay, but God is not speaking out loud to us.
Reading the Bible that some of us consider to be God's Word?
Okay, but we must interpret the Bible to understand it correctly. SOME people read the Bible and think that it clearly says that God is okay with slavery, at least some times. SOME people read the Bible and say that God is okay with forced marriages, at least some times. Others read the Bible and come up with polar opposite conclusions. Still others don't read the Bible, don't believe God and don't believe the Bible is a source for rules.
To whom do we go to objectively and authoritatively prove our opinions about the Bible and its meaning (or lack thereof)?
No one.
Do you disagree? WHO can we go to in order to get an authoritative answer? Craig? Hard pass. The pope? Pass. Billy Graham? Franklin Graham? WHO has the authoritative answer to which interpretations are objectively factually provably correct?
No one.
That is just observable reality.
IF you can prove otherwise, by all means, do so. You'll be doing me a favor and I mean that sincerely.
But you won't because you can't. If you could, you would.
WHERE in all of that (which I've covered frequently before) am I factually mistaken?
Nowhere.
So, while I believe that morality may be objective - that we could ask God one day, "Was Craig REALLLY right that there are some instances that slavery may not be a great and atrocious evil?" and get an authoritative answer - we have no way of proving it.
So, our OPINIONS about morality are not objectively provable. In that sense, they are subjective - our opinions are subjective, not objectively provable. Doesn't mean that the morality itself is not objective, only that our opinions about what we can't prove IS subjective.
And THAT is why the answer is more complex than a simple, Yup, morality is objective. Or subjective.
Now, whatever else you may think, do you at least understand why it's not a simple yes or no question?
Post a Comment