Had it been an option, I would have voted for, Go along with those parts of the Republican President’s agenda which I believed were in the national interest, regardless of who got the credit.
And from your liberal viewpoint, I have no doubt you believe all this. It does not make it reality.
You’re wrong. Reality makes me liberal, not the other way around. Unlike conservatives who have come out proudly against science.
Here’s something I accept: If science causes one of my beliefs to be proven wrong, then I will change my beliefs. How many conservatives look and science and try to change that instead of their beliefs?
Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
Way more than you think, that’s for sure. This notion that conservatives are anti-science is laughable. Sure there is a minority who choose to take a more literal interpretation of the bible, but even then, that doesn’t mean that they are against science. And most certainly against all science. You’re taking a cartoon view of thing. And you should at least acknowledge that your perception is colored by your own beliefs and biases. As everyone’s is. That’s REALITY, right there, chum. Accept that.
Yup. That’s why I try to not make statements with such sweeping certitude. First, I follow no religion. Second, I’m more than happy to attach to any belief that I hold, “I may be wrong”.
I’m sorry, are you trying to kill me with laughter??? :D:D:D:D:D:D
“Extremism” is subjective. One person may think that a flat income tax rate for all is an extreme idea; another person may think it is perfectly reasonable. One person may think that single-payer health care is an extreme idea; another person may think it is perfectly reasonable.
Ultimately, “extreme” is often a form of political name-calling meant to portray one’s opponent as unelectable and ones’ own self as mainstream.
Its mostly true that extremism is subjective, but it is also true that extremism exists. It is not a contradiction to try and define and measure it and again, in this topic and the one in GD, its telling that no conservatives have even attempted to define it, preferring to muck up the conversation with attacks and the tired old tactic of “both sides do it”.
I, however, do not subscribe to the notion that both sides deserve equal blame. It is obvious to me that in any measure of number and severity of obstructionism measuring, for example, filibusters, the GOP’s obstructionism is greater than history would suggest the trend should be, and not just greater by a little, but by a lot. Pretending one doesn’t understand math isn’t a good rebuttal against charges of extremism
That’s only if you view the level of government (however that is measured) as a fixed rate. It is possible for the federal government to do less, and the state and local governments to do less.
So then in certain circumstances, obstruction would be a net benefit? Is that a fair interpretation of what you said? If that’s true, then it’s simply an argument when those circumstances arise. So obstruction has positive uses when it’s used to further your goals, but when used to frustrate those same goals then obstruction is being used negatively. Is that about right?
I don’t know if both sides do it, I’m sure they do to different degrees. But that’s the thing - I want them to obstruct. All of them. I want the government to do as little as possible.
It is the apex of arrogance to believe you can objectively define what is in a person’s best interests. The conceit of the liberal position is that they believe they know better than everyone else. If you have a discreet measurable item then it’s possible to maximize for that item, but that doesn’t speak to someone’s best interests when you do not know the relative and comparative utility derived from all other things. In other words, of course ‘trite’ and ‘juvenile’ are subjective. The amusing part is that you recognize that, but fail to recognize that ‘best interests’ is also subjective.
I’m not convinced this is a substantive position rather than just a rhetorical framing. The devil is in competing definitions of “as possible” and also what you count as size.
If the federal government bans partial birth abortions, does that count toward it’s size? What about a new regulation pursuant to an old law? Does it increase the size of government if I add homosexuals to the list of protected classes under federal employment laws? What if I scrap EPA rules on carbon and put in place a carbon tax?
If I want to cut the military and spend that money on Pell grants, and you want to cut Pell grants and spend that money on the military, are you favoring the government doing as little as possible or not?
I agree.
Banning partial birth abortions increases the government’s level of intrusion. So yes. New regulation that is an increase in complexity is an increase. Depends on the carbon rules, but increased complexity or intrusion is an increase.
If it’s net neutral, then it’s not about size of government, but allocation of funds. That would be a separate topic.
Then I don’t necessarily agree that the GOP’s positions on the major contested issues of the day flow from a desire for small government. That doesn’t capture their position on immigration, climate change, medicare reform, defense spending, abortion, and a whole range of other issues.
I don’t know why you’re being obtuse, Bone. It’s pretty simple. Yes, there are legitimate reasons to obstruct. But if you do it all the time, then your reasons cannot be legitimate. When your job is to pass legislation, and you don’t pass legislation, you aren’t doing your job. You cannot obstruct everything.
This isn’t a politics thing. It’s a life thing. If you obstruct everything in any situation, it’s clear you aren’t actually trying to help. That’s when you become an obstructionist, which is by definition a bad thing.
It’s just being butthurt. If I don’t get my way, then I will not let anyone do anything. That’s obstructionism. It is never legitimate.
A couple points:
[ul]
[li]You’re using the word “legitimate” in a non-standard way. I take it to mean lawful. How are you using it?[/li][li]A legislator’s job is not to pass legislation.[/li][li]If the ultimate goal is served by obstructing everything, then I would say that on balance it’s a positive.[/li][/ul]
I forgot to respond to this. I generally agree - though I thought this thread was more conceptual and not directly addressing the current GOP.
I don’t wish to assign motive to the OP, or to anyone else in this thread, so I will simply state my opinion and acknowledge my own bias rather than accuse someone else of a similar bias. Obstructionism is a thing, it’s a thing that is being used to stifle legitimate governance, and it’s a disservice to the people this Congress is meant to represent. As such, it’s difficult, for me, not to read the OP as an attempt to demonstrate hypocrisy on the part of Liberals, “Admit it, guys, you would do the same thing if you were in this situation.” That’s why, in my opinion, some of this might read as directly addressing the current GOP. Because a significant portion of today’s GOP is responsible for this, complicit in this, and gleeful that it should occur. Pointing fingers and claiming, “You lot did it once, too!” is a transparent attempt to deflect attention from this apparent complicity.
Obstructionism is like water, see, 32°F and 212°F are both just temperatures, it’s just a matter of degrees. Homespun and contrived analogy, seems folksy but is obviously forced. How am I not a politician already? 
The thing is, sometimes it’s objective. Having health insurance is objectively better than not having health insurance. Having clean air and water is objectively better than not having clean air and water. Earning $10/hour is better than earning $7.25/hour which is better than earning $0.75/hour. Stuff like that.
It is not possible politically.
I don’t view the level of government as a fixed rate. The rate can be changed. One way the total amount of government can be increased is by crippling the federal government. You may say that you want more limits on the states as well, but just how do you propose to implement those limits?