Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

GOP insider: Religion destroyed my party


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#16 King

King

    A Cell of Awareness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,765 posts

Posted 06 August 2012 - 09:50 PM

Your logic (if that is what you call it) is flawless as always!


Show me the flaws. This isn't even a hard one. You don't have to defend the labor theory of value or anything.

I want to learn. Put me in my place.

#17 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,942 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 06 August 2012 - 10:20 PM

Show me the flaws. This isn't even a hard one. You don't have to defend the labor theory of value or anything.

I want to learn. Put me in my place.


... republicans are peasants who worship the rich.


If that's true, then so is the claim that democrats are peasants who worship government.



How does the validity of the first statement make the second statement true?

There is no logic in your assertion.

#18 King

King

    A Cell of Awareness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,765 posts

Posted 06 August 2012 - 10:23 PM

Thank you for the response. I want you to know that I thoroughly appreciate the polite, well-worded answer. And while I disagree with it, I'm glad you gave it respectfully.

The problem with your argument is that Republicans have consistently gone out of their way to say that the complete and utter imbalance of this nations wealth by a few is something that should be embraced because it means capitalism is working.


Laissez-faire capitalism has never existed in this country, but ignoring that, your issue (and do correct me if I'm mistaken) seems to be with the vast inequality of wealth.

Wealth, however, is not doled out arbitrarily and without reason, unless by a centralized market economy. Free trade is not good because it achieves equality, social or economic. It's good because it removes the coercion of government, which relies on the immoral and irrational use of force to change economic interests.

This centralized market philosophy rests on the belief that men, if not coerced, will make inherently irrational and destructive decisions. A foundation that is flawed from two different perspectives. The first is that it assumes man is an innately corrupt animal that will trade against his own interest, which is simply untrue, much like the Christian idea of original sin. The second is that, if in fact man is innately destructive and irrational, he should be allowed to destroy himself. There is no good in preserving a bad businessman's company.

To me the opposite is true. A monetary philosophy is a means to an end, not the end itself. The end is a nation that grows, thrives, and allows people to get ahead - the American Dream. For a very long time now this has not been happening. For those of you that are down on welfare spending and more government, think about the idea that the reason these things are happening is not because "the government wants you to be dependent on them" which is an absurd statement, but because there is not enough money going around to promote all the things that need to happen to create more wealth - spending by the middle class.


I think the bolded text is the crux of our disagreement. My philosophy is one that celebrates man living for his own sake, his own happiness. Self-interest, when not motivated irrationally or carried out with force or fraud, generates more money than a government possibly can through economic intervention, particularly when the government has no fear of failure, like a business owner does.

I suggest reading up on the Austrian economic school, which has far and away the best track record of predicting market crashes and growth patterns compared to the mainstream and Keynesian schools, let alone post-modern or Marxist ones. But these economic debates get bloated, so I'll focus on the philosophy for now.

Republicans used to be blue collar thinking people but now they are motivated by two things, religion and the false idea that opportunity still exists for people willing to work hard.


Both true, but only the first is a flaw. People are not helpless, pathetic victims to the mercy of fortune. This notion of determinism is what makes republicans and democrats so alike in their fatalism. Just as republicans will claim that God wills this or that, democrats are convinced that people lack any kind of sovereignty in their own scheme, and are controlled entirely by the wealthy. Which, for whatever reason, they view as necessitating the growth of government.

Hence, government worship. The view that only government can keep the wealthy from cannibalizing the lower classes, so government ought to be grown and made a force to be feared, keeping the wealthy in their place. Much like the truly pious believe that only an omnipotent God is capable of keeping men from killing each other.

#19 King

King

    A Cell of Awareness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,765 posts

Posted 06 August 2012 - 10:24 PM

How does the validity of the first statement make the second statement true?

There is no logic in your assertion.


See the end of my response to cookinwithgas above.

#20 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,172 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 06 August 2012 - 10:35 PM

newsflash. we have nearly 315 MILLION individuals. we are NOT homogenized. therefore you have a myriad of views and ideals and that is just nearly impossible to put a bow on.

#21 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,816 posts

Posted 06 August 2012 - 10:40 PM

The view that only government can keep the wealthy from cannibalizing the lower classes, so government ought to be grown and made a force to be feared, keeping the wealthy in their place. Much like the truly pious believe that only an omnipotent God is capable of keeping men from killing each other.


I'm sorry, but what else has kept the wealthy in their place? Asking politely?

There are a few ways to equalize the playing field, and government intervention is the only one that does not involve violence. Corporations sure depend on government to defend against transgressions from other corporations, but they can afford to buy what they need from it.

Our government was created so that everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. "The economy" is a means to that end, not the end itself. It can and should be controlled for the betterment of the nation, not just the elite few. but the rich have rigged the system so completely that it is going to take some government action to correct it - and when I say correct it, I mean just that. We've done it before as needed in both directions, now it is certainly time to get it back on the workers side.

And I say this as a person who has worked hard and am pretty satisfied with where I am in life, so my outlook on this is not really self serving, it's truly heartfelt and the idea that the middle class must be restored so people can once again be able to dream is critical to the success of the nation.

#22 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,517 posts

Posted 06 August 2012 - 11:27 PM

Neither of the last two nominees (Mccain and Romney) were favorites of the religious right.

#23 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,267 posts

Posted 06 August 2012 - 11:37 PM

and neither won

#24 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,942 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 06 August 2012 - 11:46 PM

Neither of the last two nominees (Mccain and Romney) were favorites of the religious right.



They were/are, in comparison to their Democratic opponents.

#25 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,942 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 07 August 2012 - 02:21 AM

I was responding to Nanuqofthenorth's backhanded insult that republicans are peasants who worship the rich. If that's true, then so is the claim that democrats are peasants who worship government. (In other words, Nanuqofthenorth's statement was not true. So you're whacking a strawman.)


Sorry I offended your feelings King.

Really thought someone reading a thread entitled: "GOP Insider: Religion Destroyed My Party" would have realized that the comments were not all going to be flattering to the religious types or the Republican Party.

Obviously I am critical of people that base their political decisions primarily on religious faith. It is a fair criticism in my opinion. You clearly don't agree, so what? Don't agree, no skin off my nose.

If you are upset that I pointed out your flawed attempt at logic, I'm sorry, but it was flawed.

BTW: I am not a Democrat. I also voted for President Reagan and Jesse Helms because I thought we were on the wrong course in the late 70s. I am well versed in economic theory and the fallacy that is Supply Side Economics.

I honestly think 30 years is a long enough time to give it a chance to work.

Lack of regulation caused the Great Depression and deregulation caused the greatest world financial collapse since then, just four years ago.

Years of relative economic stability in between those two events proves regulation works. Quite a few highly esteemed economists of today and those during the Great Depression that implemented the Glass Steagall Act and other regulations agree with me.

They must have known what they were doing because we experienced 70 years of relative economic stability that kept the financial industry from running our economy off the rails.

Yet there are still some that will tell you less regulation of industry is the answer today. As if the two largest financial meltdowns in the last one hundred years never happened.

The leaders of multinational corporations have sufficiently demonstrated time and again they do not have the best interests of the United States or the American Public at heart, nor should they. That is where government comes in.

IBG/YBG. Bonuses and short term stock gains are the driving forces in corporations today and that is not a healthy approach for the long term stability of the American Economy.

Sorry, all indications are that Industry works best when it is properly regulated and by extension the federal government has an important role to play in our economy.

No, I don't worship at the government alter but I do recognize the valuable role government plays in our daily lives.

#26 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,517 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 07:40 AM

and neither won

Well one of them hasn't actually had the election yet. :)

Mccain lost, not because of the religious right, but because he had the misfortune of running after GWB. No republican could have won in 2008.


IMO, religion influences the primary elections a lot more than it does the november election.

#27 Tarheel31

Tarheel31

    cynical pessimist

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 08:35 AM

IMO, religion influences the primary elections a lot more than it does the november election.


Really? You are fooling yourself.

I challenge you to walk into any one of the four billion churches in the state of north carolina and ask the occupants which candidate they will be casting their ballots for.

I'd guess the results would be about 98% for Romney.

They see it as their DUTY, they don't even consider policy.

All good christians KNOW they are to vote republican, it is a given.

#28 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:19 AM

Laissez-faire capitalism has never existed in this country, but ignoring that, your issue (and do correct me if I'm mistaken) seems to be with the vast inequality of wealth.

Wealth, however, is not doled out arbitrarily and without reason, unless by a centralized market economy. Free trade is not good because it achieves equality, social or economic. It's good because it removes the coercion of government, which relies on the immoral and irrational use of force to change economic interests.

This centralized market philosophy rests on the belief that men, if not coerced, will make inherently irrational and destructive decisions. A foundation that is flawed from two different perspectives. The first is that it assumes man is an innately corrupt animal that will trade against his own interest, which is simply untrue, much like the Christian idea of original sin. The second is that, if in fact man is innately destructive and irrational, he should be allowed to destroy himself. There is no good in preserving a bad businessman's company.

I think the bolded text is the crux of our disagreement. My philosophy is one that celebrates man living for his own sake, his own happiness. Self-interest, when not motivated irrationally or carried out with force or fraud, generates more money than a government possibly can through economic intervention, particularly when the government has no fear of failure, like a business owner does.


Interesting ideas, but there are some things I would like to point out. You claim that free trade is ideal because it removes the coercion of government and its irrational interests- I can completely understand this philosophy, and it is certainly true in some cases (the Farm Bill is a great example that most people dont know about).

The problem with your argument however, is that it doesnt really apply to regulation, especially in regards to the financial industry. You claim that the belief that "men will make inherently irrational and destructive decisions" is false because people's self-interest will not allow it. The problem with that idea (in terms of the financial industry) is that those making risky moves with things like the derivatives market are absolutely acting in their own self interests- they make tons of money, and even if a bad move makes their company go bankrupt, they are allowed to keep the millions they made.

And your point about letting the businesses fail- I have no problem with that in theory. The problem comes in situations like we faced prior to the bank bailout- the banks were too big to fail. After deregulation allowed the investment banking to combine with traditional banks, the banks that had all our money (through traditional banking) were risking it all with newly invented investment strategies. If the government had allowed those banks to fail, it would have thrown our economy into a deeper recession plus the government would have paid a bunch to cover individual's FDIC insured losses.

Bottom line, this financial crisis would not have been possible if proper government regulation was in place- the same government regulation we stripped away in the 1990s

#29 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,654 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:25 AM

Really? You are fooling yourself.

I challenge you to walk into any one of the four billion churches in the state of north carolina and ask the occupants which candidate they will be casting their ballots for.

I'd guess the results would be about 98% for Romney.

They see it as their DUTY, they don't even consider policy.

All good christians KNOW they are to vote republican, it is a given.



Guess I am in the 2%, I've never voted straight ticket in my life.

#30 davos

davos

    |~~~~|

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,053 posts
  • LocationCO

Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:46 AM

Really? You are fooling yourself.

I challenge you to walk into any one of the four billion churches in the state of north carolina and ask the occupants which candidate they will be casting their ballots for.

I'd guess the results would be about 98% for Romney.

They see it as their DUTY, they don't even consider policy.

All good christians KNOW they are to vote republican, it is a given.


I don't know about that. I would actually say a good deal of Catholics could vote Obama more than anything else. Santorum-types and its pervy leaders seem to misconstrue the make-up of the Catholic population.

Episcopal, Baptist, and Lutheran definitely seem to drive on this right side a lot in the political arena but a good chunk of Catholics that go to church like three times a year just to go to church are more left in my opinion and its not really apparent given how the media operates. They are ok or just don't care about the gay sh*t and the only "big" issue that goes against the left is that they're against abortion.

Maybe I'm wrong but I think that type is a large chunk


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com