Evil republicans eeeeeeeeviiiiiilllll!!!!

[Juror No. 8]

For the most part yes. The only moral issue they actively pursue are equal rights. They don't look to restrict people's rights.

Sure they do. People have the natural right to associate freely and discriminate in their private affairs for whatever reasons they choose, but the Democrats are all about restricting that right. Just look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for all the evidence you need.

Would you like to compare the two platforms?
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/

Honestly? No, not really.

Maybe you can cut to the chase and just tell me what material difference exists between the two parties, because in practice, I see no difference whatsoever.

 

[ivwshane]

Sure they do. People have the natural right to associate freely and discriminate in their private affairs for whatever reasons they choose, but the Democrats are all about restricting that right. Just look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for all the evidence you need.



Honestly? No, not really.

Maybe you can cut to the chase and just tell me what material difference exists between the two parties, because in practice, I see no difference whatsoever.

Lol the civil rights act was a restriction of rights? Sure if you believe others have the right to restrict rights from others.

Do you know you are retarded or is that oblivious to you?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Lol the civil rights act was a restriction of rights?

Of course it was.

Sure if you believe others have the right to restrict rights from others.

If a black woman wanted to marry you, and you discriminated against her because you're not interested in interracial relationships, would you be "restricting her rights" in any way? Of course not. Because people don't have a right to marry people who don't want to marry them.

People have a natural right to associate freely with and discriminate against others for any reason they choose. Creating any kind of legislation that says they can't is a violation of their rights.

 

[alzan]

Lol the civil rights act was a restriction of rights? Sure if you believe others have the right to restrict rights from others.

Do you know you are retarded or is that oblivious to you?

Rest assured he is completely oblivious to that all too apparent fact.

 

[alzan]

Of course it was.

If a black woman wanted to marry you, and you discriminated against her because you're not interested in interracial relationships, would you be "restricting her rights" in any way? Of course not. Because people don't have a right to marry people who don't want to marry them.

People have a natural right to associate freely with and discriminate against others for any reason they choose. Creating any kind of legislation that says they can't is a violation of their rights.

Do you know you are retarded or is that oblivious to you?

The point that went whizzing by your head is that the government can't discriminate against different racial groups.

 

[Juror No. 8]

The point that went whizzing by your head is that the government can't discriminate against different racial groups.

Yes, and you'd have a point if this was the only thing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 said, but it didn't, so you don't have a point.

The government also tells private citizens that they can't discriminate against different racial groups under certain scenarios. This is a violation of the right to free association.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Maybe you can cut to the chase and just tell me what material difference exists between the two parties, because in practice, I see no difference whatsoever.

Yes, no difference at all. That's why one of the parties bent over backwards to pass a healthcare law and the other one is promising to repeal it.

One is in favor of gay marriage and the other is not.

One supports gun control, the other does not.

One is oriented towards secular values, the other towards religious values.

One has a high percentage of minorities, the other is overwhelmingly white.

One has more urban dwellers, the other more rural dwellers.

One has a majority in the South, the other a majority in the other parts of the country.

One favors a more aggressive foreign policy, the other a more laid-back approach.

One favors the poor, the other favors the rich.

Yeah, they are almost identical. (And that's just a few off the top of my head.)

 

[Jaskalas]

Lot of new cities were founded in the south in 1964.

Discrimination / segregation simply became more geographic than it was before.

 

[Acanthus]

Isnt O'Bamma using the health care bill in an attempt to force his values on America?

Kilnd of like the SS in Germany.

I totally remember reading about the SS making sure that German citizens didn't go bankrupt or go without healthcare.

 

[nehalem256]

I could care less, it's not up to me.

If I put laws into place that represented my morals people like you wouldn't exist.

Government shouldn't legislate morals, society does that and I sure as shit don't want fucking idiots like you telling me what is or isn't moral AND I'm sure you would feel the same if I was the one legislating morals!

I will stop trying to legislate morality on others when they stop expecting me to bail them out for their immorality.

That sounds more than fair.

 

[nehalem256]

One is oriented towards secular values, the other towards religious values.

So you are agreeing that both parties want to force their values on others.

EDIT: Although classifying Republican values as "religious" is pretty much a straight up lie. Japan for instance is in no way a Christian Taliban and yet does not support gay marriage and has an incredibly low rate of out of wedlock births.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Yes, no difference at all. That's why one of the parties bent over backwards to pass a healthcare law and the other one is promising to repeal it.

Don't mistake political theater for actual reality.

You'll be disappointed every time.

One is in favor of gay marriage and the other is not.

An irrelevant 'divide and conquer' wedge issue.

Kind of like fighting over a favorite ice cream flavor.

One supports gun control, the other does not.

More political theater. We're going to get gun control either way.

Besides, the Left doesn't really support gun control at all because they are perfectly fine with the government having all the guns they want.

One is oriented towards secular values, the other towards religious values.

An irrelevant distinction. Both sides are religious in their fanaticism. One side wants to force Christianity on the rest, the other side wants to force Statism on the rest.

Both advocate Big Government equally.

One has a high percentage of minorities, the other is overwhelmingly white.

Another irrelevant, meaningless distinction.

The smallest, most vulnerable minority in the world is the individual. Both parties support the subjugation of the individual to collectivist interests.

No difference whatsoever.

One has more urban dwellers, the other more rural dwellers.

Irrelevant.

One has a majority in the South, the other a majority in the other parts of the country.

Even more irrelevant.

One favors a more aggressive foreign policy, the other a more laid-back approach.

Democrats: WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam
Republicans: Iraq 1, Afghanistan, Iraq 2

They both look aggressive to me.

One favors the poor, the other favors the rich.

You mean, one pretends to favor the poor while pandering to the rich, while the other just panders to the rich without apology.

No material difference.

Yeah, they are almost identical. (And that's just a few off the top of my head.)

I agree, they are almost identical.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Don't mistake political theater for actual reality.

Thanks for the tip.

An irrelevant 'divide and conquer' wedge issue.

Still a difference between the parties. Ask a gay couple if it matters.

More political theater. We're going to get gun control either way.

You call this a counter-argument? One side wants it a lot more than the other. There has been no advancement in the area of gun control in years, in large part because one party has blocked it. The other party would change that.

It's a clear difference in policy.

Besides, the Left doesn't really support gun control at all because they are perfectly fine with the government having all the guns they want.

Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand what "gun control" is about.

An irrelevant distinction. Both sides are religious in their fanaticism. One side wants to force Christianity on the rest, the other side wants to force Statism on the rest.

Another gibberish response. Both sides are not "religious in their fanaticism", and there are significant differences in how they treat the church/state separation issue.

Another irrelevant, meaningless distinction.

You seem to think hand-waving constitutes counter-argument.

It doesn't.

Not wasting my time with the rest of your puerile response.

 

[Rainsford]

So you are agreeing that both parties want to force their values on others.

EDIT: Although classifying Republican values as "religious" is pretty much a straight up lie. Japan for instance is in no way a Christian Taliban and yet does not support gay marriage and has an incredibly low rate of out of wedlock births.

I think Democrats and Republicans might have somewhat different individual values, but their POLICY differences are much more significant. For instance, in general you could say that Republicans disagree with gay marriage while Democrats support it. Their "values" on the issue are basically opposites. However, when it comes to policy, only one side wants to use government policy to force others to conform to a particular set of values. Making gay marriage illegal prevents gay couples from marrying even if they want to. Making gay marriage LEGAL, on the other hand, does not really force people who don't like gay marriage to do anything different. In other words, banning gay marriage is not the opposite of legalizing it. The latter has no forcible values component to it while the former definitely does. Abortion is also a good example of what I'm talking about.

And while other countries may enact similar laws to the US for different reasons, there is absolutely no question that in THIS country, "traditional values" are very closely linked to religious beliefs...specifically conservative Christian beliefs.

 

[nehalem256]

I think Democrats and Republicans might have somewhat different individual values, but their POLICY differences are much more significant. For instance, in general you could say that Republicans disagree with gay marriage while Democrats support it. Their "values" on the issue are basically opposites. However, when it comes to policy, only one side wants to use government policy to force others to conform to a particular set of values. Making gay marriage illegal prevents gay couples from marrying even if they want to. Making gay marriage LEGAL, on the other hand, does not really force people who don't like gay marriage to do anything different. In other words, banning gay marriage is not the opposite of legalizing it. The latter has no forcible values component to it while the former definitely does. Abortion is also a good example of what I'm talking about.

Gay couples are free to get married today in any state. Government stormtroops will not show up and put a stop to a gay marriage. The government simply will not recognize it.

You cannot demand that the government be involved in marriage. And then complain when the government is involved.

EDIT: For abortion. The democratic platform endorses government funded abortion. So you lose on that point.

And while other countries may enact similar laws to the US for different reasons, there is absolutely no question that in THIS country, "traditional values" are very closely linked to religious beliefs...specifically conservative Christian beliefs.

And yet countries without a christian tradition, such as Japan, hold the same beliefs. Doesn't this tell you that religion simply reflect values instead being their source.

As another example see liberal christian churches which do not support traditional values.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Thanks for the tip.

Anytime.

Still a difference between the parties.

Sure, if you consider insignificant differences as important in any way.

Ask a gay couple if it matters.

Right, just like I could ask a Jersey Shore fan if their favorite TV show really matters.

Of course they're going to say it matters. They've been programmed to believe it does.

You call this a counter-argument? One side wants it a lot more than the other.

If the Democrats really wanted true "gun control", they'd argue in favor of the government having fewer guns. They would especially be up in arms (pun intended) about Fast and Furious, where the government was caught giving guns to dangerous criminals. But they don't. The Democrats only want gun control for law-abiding citizens, which is akin to wanting "victim disarmament".

Since gun control, AKA, victim disarmament, isn't politically expedient at the current time, it is used as a wedge issue. But make no mistake, both parties want the U.S. citizenry disarmed, they just haven't figured out a way to get it done yet.

The Left There has been no advancement in the area of gun control in years, in large part because one party has blocked it. The other party would change that.

It's not the Republican Party blocking it, it's the Republican Party's constituents.

It's a clear difference in policy.

Sure, but only if you believe the narrative as it has been fed to you by the media and political establishment.

In reality, there's no difference in policy.

Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand what "gun control" is about.

Actually, it's you who doesn't know.

The government wants gun control for the same reason a bank robber doesn't want bank tellers to have handguns inside their money drawers. It's much easier to rob, exploit, and oppress people when they have no ability to fight back.

Another gibberish response. Both sides are not "religious in their fanaticism", and there are significant differences in how they treat the church/state separation issue.

Nonsense. Christians praise Jesus while Leftist/Democrats praise the State. Christians get indoctrinated inside churches while Leftist/Democrats get indoctrinated inside government schools.

There's no discernible difference.

You seem to think hand-waving constitutes counter-argument.

It doesn't.

Not wasting my time with the rest of your puerile response.

You've got no arguments. All you've got is whatever you heard on TV or read in the New York Times.

Get back to me when you can come up with something that isn't Pavlovian, regurgitated propaganda.

 

[lotus503]

Yes, no difference at all. That's why one of the parties bent over backwards to pass a healthcare law and the other one is promising to repeal it.

One is in favor of gay marriage and the other is not.

One supports gun control, the other does not.

One is oriented towards secular values, the other towards religious values.

One has a high percentage of minorities, the other is overwhelmingly white.

One has more urban dwellers, the other more rural dwellers.

One has a majority in the South, the other a majority in the other parts of the country.

One favors a more aggressive foreign policy, the other a more laid-back approach.

One favors the poor, the other favors the rich.

Yeah, they are almost identical. (And that's just a few off the top of my head.)

Yet when it comes to legislation they all serve the same %.05 of the country that funds the election cycle.

 

[alzan]

Yes, and you'd have a point if this was the only thing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 said, but it didn't, so you don't have a point.

The government also tells private citizens that they can't discriminate against different racial groups under certain scenarios. This is a violation of the right to free association.

That's the law of the country; guess you'll have to find a way to come to grips with it.

 

[nehalem256]

Nonsense. Christians praise Jesus while Leftist/Democrats praise the State. Christians get indoctrinated inside churches while Leftist/Democrats get indoctrinated inside government schools.

The difference is that Leftists push morality he agrees with.

Leftists are simply afraid to have to debate the merits of their morality against conservatives. And so are forced to insist that it is only those mean evil conservatives forcing their morality on others.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Get back to me when you can come up with something that isn't Pavlovian, regurgitated propaganda.

You claimed there were no differences between the parties. I listed several differences. You responded with: "Those differences don't matter! I was right, they're the same!"

So, no thanks, I don't plan to "get back to you". I've been involved in online political discussions for over 20 years, and I know from experience that trying to have an honest discussion with someone like yourself is utterly pointless.

 

[Juror No. 8]

That's the law of the country; guess you'll have to find a way to come to grips with it.

How funny. That's the same thing the slave owners used to say to the slaves, back when the Supreme Court ruled that chattel slavery was protected under the U.S. Constitution:

"That's the law of the country, boy; guess you'll have to find a way to come to grips with it. Now get back out there and pick some cotton!"

Good argument!

 

[Juror No. 8]

The difference is that Leftists push morality he agrees with.

Leftists are simply afraid to have to debate the merits of their morality against conservatives. And so are forced to insist that it is only those mean evil conservatives forcing their morality on others.

I know. Leftist morality is essentially slave morality when you get down to it, and most Leftists will do anything at all to avoid a deep philosophical discussion of their political ideology because of this. They know exactly how it will end up, with them being exposed as the monsters they are.

 

[lotus503]

I know. Leftist morality is essentially slave morality when you get down to it, and most Leftists will do anything at all to avoid a deep philosophical discussion of their political ideology because of this. They know exactly how it will end up, with them being exposed as the monsters they are.

Truth is common variant Ideologues are the problem

 

[Juror No. 8]

You claimed there were no differences between the parties. I listed several differences.

No you didn't. You didn't list a single real difference, only cosmetic differences. It's kind of like me pointing out two dogs and saying, "Look at those two dogs. They are basically the same!", and you responding with, "But the one on the left has a red collar unlike the one on the right!".

Just because you've been brainwashed to believe there's a difference between the parties doesn't really mean there is a difference.

So, no thanks, I don't plan to "get back to you". I've been involved in online political discussions for over 20 years, and I know from experience that trying to have an honest discussion with someone like yourself is utterly pointless.

You've been at this for 20 years and you're still treading the same, tired, partisan ground? And you still haven't gotten anywhere?

LOL, the living definition of insanity.

 

[nehalem256]

I know. Leftist morality is essentially slave morality when you get down to it, and most Leftists will do anything at all to avoid a deep philosophical discussion of their political ideology because of this. They know exactly how it will end up, with them being exposed as the monsters they are.

There belief is fundamentally that hardworking and moral individuals should be forced to support lazy and immoral individuals.

And then you have their nonsense that marriage means whatever anyone wants to mean.