First Republican Primary Debate

[overdoziziz]

I don't find it nearly as outrageous as it seems you do. That statement, like most dichotomic statements, does not always hold true but even with everything else being equal the social stigma attached with gay families could possibly have negative effects on the child(ren). And that's overlooking the problems associated with adoption, which would account for a significant portion of gay families.

 

However, my point is that nothing he has said is even remotely near what the Jim Crow leaders were doing. I completely understand how people like yourself find things he says extremely distasteful and bigoted. I'm just saying that you can make a solid argument without making blatantly stretched analogies that benefit nothing.

 

I think he is doing the modern equivilant. Of course, if anyone took a fire hose and sprayed gay people it would be totally outrageous. But such behavior was not seen as blatantly socially unacceptable in the days you mention.

 

Today, of course, it is not blatantly socially unacceptable to call gay families inherently weak families, because we are still unfortunately fighting for gay rights. But I think that 50-60 years down the road from now (just like when we look back at black rights) the current oppression towards gays will seem just as inconsiderate and bigoted as racism towards blacks now seems.

 

It is all a matter of framing. He is pushing his descrimination to the highest tolerable level in today's society. He might not be making straight-only water fountains, but he's doing the modern-day equivilant.

 

And again, it wasn't an argument or an analogy. It was me vocalizing how ridiculous I feel this man is. I didn't lay down a dissertation that presented a series of logical arguments that relied on gay-bashing being identical to slavery. There was no argument. I just think the man is a fool and wanted to vocalize this in an overt way.

 

[TrueBeaver]

So... the modern equivalent of hosing people down is talking derisively about them? Talk about the wussification of America. While it's very likely that down the road opposition to gay rights will be viewed as bigoted, people who don't actually do anything bigoted tend to be lost to the annals of history. President Wilson was overtly racist and sexist during a time period when that was socially acceptable yet is more known for presiding over some ass-kickery in Europe and being the object of Glenn Beck's ire because he didn't act on his racism and sexism much if at all. Instead we learn about Henry Billings Brown's court's ruling (Plessy v Ferguson), among other various racist acts.

 

What I'm trying to say is, just because we have made significant progress in toleration that doesn't make oppression scaled across time. Slaveholders raping and killing their slaves is just as bigoted as the KKK raping and killing blacks, despite the former being socially accepted at the time.

 

And it was certainly an analogy. You were vocalizing how ridiculous you feel that man is by comparing it to something else - which is an analogy. I can say "It's hotter than hell out here." and it's still an analogy despite there being no dissertation. You can argue semantics until the cows come home but my point remains: your analogy was inaccurate and disrespectful.

[Will H]

Hmm, I just realised that this is an opportunity to ask something I've wondered about for a while. *ahem*

 

 

Dear American Republican,

 

Why are you opposed to the healthcare bill? Is it the principle of Universal Healthcare or the details of this bill in particular?

 

Sincerely,

British Conservative

[Myweponsg00d]

So... the modern equivalent of hosing people down is talking derisively about them?

 

Yes, this is what I'm saying. Saying that you can't have a strong family if you are in a gay marriage is probably the most offensive thing that you can get away with in today's society. Sure, making a black only water fountain was "worse" in terms of how we view it, but at the time it shared a similar place in social norms: the verge between culturally appropriate and unacceptable.

Hmm, I just realised that this is an opportunity to ask something I've wondered about for a while. *ahem*

 

 

Dear American Republican,

 

Why are you opposed to the healthcare bill? Is it the principle of Universal Healthcare or the details of this bill in particular?

 

Sincerely,

British Conservative

 

A huge thing that defines the American right-wing viewpoint is the idea that the federal government should not gain too much power, influence, or control over individuals. I don't think that most of the Republican objections are about the bill not being economically advantageous or any such thing. The opposition is to the idea of the bill. It is "un-American". Republicans in America fight to keep our country Capitalist in every way possible. The healthcare reform is too socialist for them.

[Will H]

Hmm, I just realised that this is an opportunity to ask something I've wondered about for a while. *ahem*

 

 

Dear American Republican,

 

Why are you opposed to the healthcare bill? Is it the principle of Universal Healthcare or the details of this bill in particular?

 

Sincerely,

British Conservative

 

A huge thing that defines the American right-wing viewpoint is the idea that the federal government should not gain too much power, influence, or control over individuals. I don't think that most of the Republican objections are about the bill not being economically advantageous or any such thing. The opposition is to the idea of the bill. It is "un-American". Republicans in America fight to keep our country Capitalist in every way possible. The healthcare reform is too socialist for them.

 

Thanks for the answer. I think it's an extremely narrow minded viewpoint, and I disagree with it a lot, but at least I now know what it is.

[TrueBeaver]

Hmm, I just realised that this is an opportunity to ask something I've wondered about for a while. *ahem*

 

 

Dear American Republican,

 

Why are you opposed to the healthcare bill? Is it the principle of Universal Healthcare or the details of this bill in particular?

 

Sincerely,

British Conservative

For me, it's a mixture of both. I believe the private sector does just about everything better and more efficiently than the government and as such would like to see the private sector be responsible for more of our GDP. But in addition, that bill is horrible. The 1099 requirement (basically forcing small businesses to fill out mountains of paperwork) is the biggest example, although it's on its way to being repealed. Because they didn't have the votes needed to pass it, the bill is filled with pork spending to essentially buy votes. Further, the bill doesn't achieve the stated goal of providing health care for every American, in fact it will barely cover half and many of those are young people who could afford insurance but choose not to buy it. I don't see how making a sixth of our economy less efficient, less innovative, and less quality is worth those meager gains. Not the mention that entitlement spending is already bending us over and adding another will surely not help. That said, there are some good things about the bill: children can stay on their parents' plan until they're 26, for example, and insurance companies are required to cover children with pre-existing conditions. But in my opinion the negatives far outweigh the positives and thus support it being replaced.

 

edit: I also have a problem with the process. The bill was written behind closed doors then was voted on something like 24 hours after it went public. The thing is around 1,100 pages and the notion that congressmen could read and understand the various provisions in the bill in that time frame is laughable, even with teams of lawyers. This is evidenced by several controversial provisions being discovered long after the vote; the 1099 clause was one of those.

 

So... the modern equivalent of hosing people down is talking derisively about them?

 

Yes, this is what I'm saying. Saying that you can't have a strong family if you are in a gay marriage is probably the most offensive thing that you can get away with in today's society. Sure, making a black only water fountain was "worse" in terms of how we view it, but at the time it shared a similar place in social norms: the verge between culturally appropriate and unacceptable.

Thanks for the enjoyable discussion but if you believe that the two are equal I have nothing further to say.

[sees_all1]

Hmm, I just realised that this is an opportunity to ask something I've wondered about for a while. *ahem*

 

 

Dear American Republican,

 

Why are you opposed to the healthcare bill? Is it the principle of Universal Healthcare or the details of this bill in particular?

 

Sincerely,

British Conservative

 

Let's take a look at the listed pharmaceutical companies in wikipedia by country.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pharmaceutical_companies_by_country

 

India has 38.

UK has 26.

Germany has 21.

The US has 142.

 

I'd like to blame those dirty rotten capitalists for making drug research and development profitable.

[obfuscator]

Canada has 21. Given they have one tenth of the population of the states that puts them on pace for 210 if they had the same population and GDP.

[The Dark Lord]

I'd honestly vote for Ron Paul. Most everyone else running under the GOP are morons in my opinion. Especially Trump.

 

That said, I'm not too fussed about Obama being re-elected. I do think that the Republicans would [bleep] up any chance of him actually accomplishing anything, though.

[sees_all1]

Canada has 21. Given they have one tenth of the population of the states that puts them on pace for 210 if they had the same population and GDP.

They're also right across the border from the US, call them our hat.

[obfuscator]

Canada has 21. Given they have one tenth of the population of the states that puts them on pace for 210 if they had the same population and GDP.

They're also right across the border from the US, call them our hat.

Shrug. And America is Canada's underpants. :P

[sees_all1]

Canada has 21. Given they have one tenth of the population of the states that puts them on pace for 210 if they had the same population and GDP.

They're also right across the border from the US, call them our hat.

Shrug. And America is Canada's underpants. :P

No that's Mexico.

[obfuscator]

No, Mexico would be our socks.