Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Ryujin]

It's clearly reasoned, you just disagree either with the premises or the conclusions. We all do ourselves a disservice when we mistake disagreement with perfidy.

The actions taken in your House, of recent years, would beg to differ. Simply blocking government funding isn't a reasoned response; it's a spasm.

This returns to the fallacy that because I did not decry an action this time, I must support it. I believe this is a major argument used against the depiction of Muslims as supportive of extremist Islam? Why should it apply to conservatives, but not Muslims? NOTE: I do not support this argument against Muslims, I'm only using it for rhetorical purposes.

It's also used in the, "If you aren't with us then you're with the terrorists" sort of rhetoric. In the instance Goldomark cited it's more than that. It's actively profiting from such activity, by turning a blind eye to it.

 

[Umbran]

I think that's a bit of a misunderstanding of the "reduction of government" planks of the Republican party. They want to reduce some aspects of government while increasing others. Usually it's military and business spending at the expense of social welfare programs. The net result isn't a reduction of government, but a realigning of it.

In campaign rhetoric, GOP candidates frequently claim they want outright reduction of government. You have to do an analysis of proposed budgets and tax policies, or look at the historical results of past GOP administrations, to find out the actuality.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The actions taken in your House, of recent years, would beg to differ. Simply blocking government funding isn't a reasoned response; it's a spasm.



It's also used in the, "If you aren't with us then you're with the terrorists" sort of rhetoric. In the instance Goldomark cited it's more than that. It's actively profiting from such activity, by turning a blind eye to it.

Yes, blocking a government action can very well be a trained action. If be fairly certain that you aren't against the Democrat blocking currently going on and would consider it very reasonable. I submit that your agreement with the reasoning is active factor.

You'll have to walk me through how another candidate getting votes is a benefit to the first.

 

[Ryujin]

Yes, blocking a government action can very well be a trained action. If be fairly certain that you aren't against the Democrat blocking currently going on and would consider it very reasonable. I submit that your agreement with the reasoning is active factor.

You'll have to walk me through how another candidate getting votes is a benefit to the first.

Please note that I said "your House." I'm Canadian. It doesn't matter to me whether it's a Democratic or Republican act. If it's not thought out, it's nothing more than a political spasm.

It's a pretty short walk. If the Party gains votes, then it benefits.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Please note that I said "your House." I'm Canadian. It doesn't matter to me whether it's a Democratic or Republican act. If it's not thought out, it's nothing more than a political spasm.

It's a pretty short walk. If the Party gains votes, then it benefits.

Yeah, I had gathered you weren't Merkin, and I would have guessed Canadian due to the use of idiom (Your English is flawless for a foreigner, btw). I made my points with that in mind.

And, since we're not a Parliamentary system, the Party doesn't gain votes. Typically, if jack@#$ candidate one solicits racist votes via racist rhetoric, those aren't normally transferrable to non-jack@#$ candidate two who doesn't use the rhetoric and doesn't court that vote. If those voters vote for him, it's likely they would have without candidate one at all.

But, again, this construct puts the onus onto the non-jack@#$s to spend most of their time repeatedly denying the jack@#$s. You postulate that the non-jack@#$ gets a benefit from not spending his time though, but it's just a postulate -- you haven't shown this to be true in even a cursory way. Yet you insist that the proper behavior is to spend the time to constantly and loudly decry. It's a no-win situation if you accept the premise. By the by, the Donald is having great success by refusing to play by those premises, and that's one of the reasons he's popular right now -- because he doesn't play the game according to the rigged rules. I'm not a fan, but I can respect that.

 

[Ryujin]

Yeah, I had gathered you weren't Merkin, and I would have guessed Canadian due to the use of idiom (Your English is flawless for a foreigner, btw). I made my points with that in mind.

And, since we're not a Parliamentary system, the Party doesn't gain votes. Typically, if jack@#$ candidate one solicits racist votes via racist rhetoric, those aren't normally transferrable to non-jack@#$ candidate two who doesn't use the rhetoric and doesn't court that vote. If those voters vote for him, it's likely they would have without candidate one at all.

But, again, this construct puts the onus onto the non-jack@#$s to spend most of their time repeatedly denying the jack@#$s. You postulate that the non-jack@#$ gets a benefit from not spending his time though, but it's just a postulate -- you haven't shown this to be true in even a cursory way. Yet you insist that the proper behavior is to spend the time to constantly and loudly decry. It's a no-win situation if you accept the premise. By the by, the Donald is having great success by refusing to play by those premises, and that's one of the reasons he's popular right now -- because he doesn't play the game according to the rigged rules. I'm not a fan, but I can respect that.

True enough; I've posted an assumption on my part rather than a supported theory. My only supporting evidence for it is anecdotal, which for all intents and purposes is none at all.

And your take on my "spasm" comment?

 

[Ovinomancer]

True enough; I've posted an assumption on my part rather than a supported theory. My only supporting evidence for it is anecdotal, which for all intents and purposes is none at all.

And your take on my "spasm" comment?

Difference of opinion. It appears spasmish because the Republican party is currently deeply divided, with the small TEA party contingent actively chaffing under the establishment. Agree or disagree with the reasoning, the tactics used were sound and those using them did so with consideration and intent. Personally, as an American and with appreciation for our rather uniquely built system of government, I'm all for gridlock as a standard. There are too many laws already, and no effective mechanisms that cause their review or adjustment, so we just keep passing more on top of the existing set of failures (and successes). No one bothers to try to understand the history and/or just focus on the benefits side of the cost/benefit analysis. NO one does a risk evaluation, let alone a risk mitigation plan for legislation. They just pass it, get the sound bite for their next campaign, and roll. So not doing anything is often, to me, a better occurance than the continued passage of badly flawed legislation (the ACA, for instance -- without even touching on its intended purpose the law as written is horrid-bad, largely due to the way it was passed and the failure to adequately understand the ramifications of the law).

 

[Ryujin]

Difference of opinion. It appears spasmish because the Republican party is currently deeply divided, with the small TEA party contingent actively chaffing under the establishment. Agree or disagree with the reasoning, the tactics used were sound and those using them did so with consideration and intent. Personally, as an American and with appreciation for our rather uniquely built system of government, I'm all for gridlock as a standard. There are too many laws already, and no effective mechanisms that cause their review or adjustment, so we just keep passing more on top of the existing set of failures (and successes). No one bothers to try to understand the history and/or just focus on the benefits side of the cost/benefit analysis. NO one does a risk evaluation, let alone a risk mitigation plan for legislation. They just pass it, get the sound bite for their next campaign, and roll. So not doing anything is often, to me, a better occurance than the continued passage of badly flawed legislation (the ACA, for instance -- without even touching on its intended purpose the law as written is horrid-bad, largely due to the way it was passed and the failure to adequately understand the ramifications of the law).

From that point of view I much prefer our Parliamentary system, in a minority government situation. It tends to force co-operation and sober thought.

Stopping your budget from passing, as a tactic, strikes me as being an (word I probably shouldn't use here) type of behaviour. Your government needs to continue day-to-day operation. If the real problem is packing the bill that becomes that budget with other crap then that needs to be fixed, but not paying your Federal workers is a stupid thing to do.

 

[Umbran]

And, since we're not a Parliamentary system, the Party doesn't gain votes. Typically, if jack@#$ candidate one solicits racist votes via racist rhetoric, those aren't normally transferrable to non-jack@#$ candidate two who doesn't use the rhetoric and doesn't court that vote. If those voters vote for him, it's likely they would have without candidate one at all.

You seem to forget that legislation these days is heavily influenced by caucuses and voting blocks. Jack winning his election helps his entire party. When both Jack and non-Jack get into the legislative chambers, and non-Jack totally gets support from Jack, non-Jack, and the party, is benefiting from those Jack votes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You seem to forget that legislation these days is heavily influenced by caucuses and voting blocks. Jack winning his election helps his entire party. When both Jack and non-Jack get into the legislative chambers, and non-Jack totally gets support from Jack, non-Jack, and the party, is benefiting from those Jack votes.

So because one person is a slime, the whole party is a slime if they don't throw that one person out? That's an interesting premise, and I'm not sure you really want to follow it through to conclusion, given the number of politicians on both sides that have and are bad actors in many areas and yet still hold positions. The better option sounds like you don't endorse the slimeball or his positions but, since he's elected and you can't toss him entirely, you hold your nose on the good causes and move forward. Not supporting his crazy seems enough in an elected house, but the argument here is that repudiation in the extreme is necessary. Again, not sure everyone here really wants to follow that through, they just want the other side to do it.