I Used to Privately Snicker at the Dems

[Bricker]

@John Mace

But aren’t those perfect examples of positions that reasonable people can agree or disagree on? And Dems are not so much in favor of legalizing drugs, although they might prefer different sentencing optoins for users as opposed to pushers-- which I frankly think is a damn good idea. It’s unclear to me how this is an issue of being the party of “law”.

Of course they are perfect examples of positions that reasonable people can agree or disagree on! They are illustrations of why I support the GOP, but don’t consider the Democrats evil or morally bereft. I just disagree with them on the wisest ways to govern the nation.

I don’t support the idea that different sentencing options are the way to go – I favor long prison sentences for heroin, cocaine, even pot users and dealers. This is a reason to support the Republicans. Not a reason to say the Democrats are evil, or stupid, or traitors to the country. Just that their ideas in this area don’t track with mine.

OK, but I think it’s important to note that the morality you’re talking about is your own personal sense of morality. Even if it might also be shared by many Americans, it is not shared by many others. In that sense I can’t see how holding an opposing view could be said to be not favoring morality. Let’s take the issue of the death penalty, which is certainly a more weighty moral issue than “dirty words”, no? Which party is more likely to take the “moral” high road on that issue?

Sure, of course – and as you suggest, it’s “morality” that’s shared by much of the country. Is it universal? Of course not. There is no objective authority to define moral issues. But the moral sense I have about most things seems to be the moral sense that the GOP advances. Not all things, of course – you hit the nail on the head when you discuss the death penalty, which I personally do believe is immoral, and which, sadly, the Republicans enthusaistically support. But the Democrats embrace abortion rights, which I also regard personally as an immoral choice. So on balance, the party that more closely mirrors my moral sense is the GOP.

[elucidator]

Like babies. They wake up and cry every few hours.

[Bricker]

@Fear Itself

It’s not just the Foley fiasco. Cunningham, Ney, DeLay… OK, not every Republican, but a rogue’s gallery large enough to make a mockery of claims that the GOP is the party of “law and morality”.

But the Democrats have also had their share of rouges. Clearly I cannot demand of any party – although I wish I could – purity from each and every one of their elected members.

In general, the Republicans seek to enact policies and programs that I generally agree with. In general, the Democrats do not.

Nor do I see a dramatic difference in the presence or absence of scoundrels on either side.

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

You are, of course, welcome to hold your own view of what “law and morality” means. But your view appears to be a very circumscribed view, one that focuses heavily on individual and relatively inconsequential sins, while largely excluding the large-scale sins that do substantial harm to large numbers of people, that one cannot commit without a great deal of power over one’s fellow man.

Most of us here are far more upset about the actual physical carnage in Iraq than the potential moral carnage of a whole host of “Toilet Man” sequels.

But the actual physical carnage in Iraq is not the result of a “sin” – that is, I don’t agree it was the wrong thing to do.

[Guinastasia]

@Bricker

I don’t support the idea that different sentencing options are the way to go – I favor long prison sentences for heroin, cocaine, even pot users and dealers.

Why do you support this? Do you honestly think it WORKS?

[eleanorigby]

@elucidator

Like babies. They wake up and cry every few hours.

I don’t think they cry. People without conscience and with moral and mental astigmatism lack insight. I believe that Reps prefer it that way. God forbid you actually look inward and think something through. Pot smokers=bad; off to prison go they, no matter the circumstances. Gay=bad; unwed mothers=bad and on and on…it’s black and white thinking, when the world is all shades of gray.
Bricker’s epiphany is looking less of one to me now, and more like an" oops, gee I guess GOPers can have deviant sexual urges, too. Their bad."
Blech.

[Bricker]

@Guinastasia

Why do you support this? Do you honestly think it WORKS?

Maybe not the right thread for that discussion? For the purposes of this thread, can we agree that someone can hold that position as a matter of good faith, reaching that conclusion by a honest evaluation of the facts and circumstances… even if the position is one you disagree with?

[elucidator]

As well, we must consider what a beneficial effect these Draconian proscriptions have brought. Just look at the emergency room admissions for marijuana overdose! Were it not for such severe proscriptions, those numbers might double, even treble! If there’s even room for them, what with the drunks drivers wrapped around tree trunks, and stuff.

Criminy Crickets, Bricker, do you even know any potheads?

[elucidator]

@Bricker

But the actual physical carnage in Iraq is not the result of a “sin” – that is, I don’t agree it was the wrong thing to do.

If sacrificing thousands of innocent lives in an empty cause isn’t a “sin”, please advise… what is?

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

Of course they are perfect examples of positions that reasonable people can agree or disagree on! They are illustrations of why I support the GOP, but don’t consider the Democrats evil or morally bereft. I just disagree with them on the wisest ways to govern the nation.

OK, but I’m still confused about how the Republicans are supposed to be the party of law, as opposed to the Democracts who are the party of… what? Different laws, perhaps, but not of lawlessness or disprespet for the law. So, can we agree that the Democrats are also the party of law? Both parties have individuals who have skirted the law, but neither party actively promotes breaking the law, do they?

Sure, of course – and as you suggest, it’s “morality” that’s shared by much of the country. Is it universal? Of course not. There is no objective authority to define moral issues. But the moral sense I have about most things seems to be the moral sense that the GOP advances. Not all things, of course – you hit the nail on the head when you discuss the death penalty, which I personally do believe is immoral, and which, sadly, the Republicans enthusaistically support. But the Democrats embrace abortion rights, which I also regard personally as an immoral choice. So on balance, the party that more closely mirrors my moral sense is the GOP.

OK, so by “morality” you meant “morality which is more closely aligned with yours”. Nothing wrong with that.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

As well, we must consider what a beneficial effect these Draconian proscriptions have brought. Just look at the emergency room admissions for marijuana overdose! Were it not for such severe proscriptions, those numbers might double, even treble! If there’s even room for them, what with the drunks drivers wrapped around tree trunks, and stuff.

Criminy Crickets, Bricker, do you even know any potheads?

Is this really the right place to get into the merits of the position?

I don’t believe I know any potheads. At one time, I knew several. But that was at a time when the J. Geils Band rocked the charts with “Centerfold.” Lately? Not so much, no.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

If sacrificing thousands of innocent lives in an empty cause isn’t a “sin”, please advise… what is?

I don’t agree it’s an empty cause, any more than WWI or WWII were empty causes.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

What’s the cause?

[Bricker]

@John Mace

OK, but I’m still confused about how the Republicans are supposed to be the party of law, as opposed to the Democracts who are the party of… what? Different laws, perhaps, but not of lawlessness or disprespet for the law. So, can we agree that the Democrats are also the party of law? Both parties have individuals who have skirted the law, but neither party actively promotes breaking the law, do they?

No. But the Democrats’ approach has the effect of vitiating the punative effect of the laws. If the law provides for a prison sentence, I support the party that is more likely to implement policies that ensure the sentence is served, not the party that’s more likely to urge parole or probation or alternative sentencing. This is not saying that parole, probation, or alternative sentencing are illegal… it is to refer to the weakening of the punative effect of the law.

OK, so by “morality” you meant “morality which is more closely aligned with yours”. Nothing wrong with that.

Of course. There is no absolute authority for morality that we can both agree upon.

[Guinastasia]

@Bricker

I don’t agree it’s an empty cause, any more than WWI or WWII were empty causes.

WWII I’ll give you, but truly, WWI WAS an empty cause. The whole thing was a major blunder in European politics that pretty much fucked over a lot of nations for a good long time.

[Walter_Windchill]

@Bricker

Karl Rove set up Dan Rather, they’d scream. And I’d snicker, because it was such a ridiculous attempt to deflect attention from the fact that the documents were phony. They had a hundred excuses… “But there WERE documents that said that, just not these.” Uh huh. My party, though I never pictured them as saints, would never even try to float trial balloons that flimsy.

And you don’t see all the business with the memos as a ridiculous attempt to deflect attention away from Bush’s dubious service record?

[Bricker]

@Diogenes the Cynic

What’s the cause?

At the time the action was undertaken, the cause was to eliminate the threat of chemical or biological weaponry and to remove a brutal dictator from power.

Subsequent events have revealed that there was no real threat from chemical or biological weapons, but that wasn’t known at the time, and even if it had been, the removal of Hussein from power was still a good cause.

[Walter_Windchill]

@Bricker

At the time the action was undertaken, the cause was to eliminate the threat of chemical or biological weaponry and to remove a brutal dictator from power.

Subsequent events have revealed that there was no real threat from chemical or biological weapons, but that wasn’t known at the time, and even if it had been, the removal of Hussein from power was still a good cause.

Also, four legs good, two legs better.

[Fear_Itself]

@Bricker

Nor do I see a dramatic difference in the presence or absence of scoundrels on either side.

Suppose I accept, for arguments sake, your claim that the Republicans are no worse than the Democrats. Do you see the hypocrisy when Republicans portray themselves as the party of morality, or at least as more morally upright than the other party? Surely they should be held to a higher standard, no?

[lissener]

@Bricker

No. But the Democrats’ approach has the effect of vitiating the punative effect of the laws. If the law provides for a prison sentence, I support the party that is more likely to implement policies that ensure the sentence is served, not the party that’s more likely to urge parole or probation or alternative sentencing. This is not saying that parole, probation, or alternative sentencing are illegal… it is to refer to the weakening of the punative effect of the law.

Of course. There is no absolute authority for morality that we can both agree upon.

So . . . you would endorse imprisonment for someone who is sexually aroused by something that you personally find icky? Hmm . . . nope, no possibility of a slippery slope there.