Logic Should Prevail

[ZEB]

Sometimes I really wish all of this partisan bickering would come to an end. I wonder why in 2011 we can’t just look at things logically instead of always through the standard political process.

Forget you are either a republican or a democrat and look at the following thoughts in a logical manner:

Does it really make sense to pay someone to stay home? The government takes money from people who earn it and gives it away to someone and all they have to do is NOT work. You can call it unemployment insurance, or welfare, or any number of government programs from HUD to food stamps. Who is ever encouraged to go out and get a job when you pay them to do the very opposite?

The same goes with our tax structure. Does it make sense to take a higher percentage out of the pay checks of people who happen to make more money? How does that reward positive behavior? If you worked for a widget company and they said that the more widgets you sell the less money you will make, and if you do not sell any widgets those selling more have to give you some of their pay you would probably resign your position.

Does it make sense to create entire institutions which take power away from the people and put it into the hands of a large inefficient, uncaring government?

How does any of this make sense. And how do normally intelligent adults get into the mind-set that these are good ideas? Who is actually helped by these things in the long run other than government which continues to grow and thus will need even more money to run.

Granted many issues are not as cut and dry. But it seems to me that there needs to be more logic applied and less standard political rhetoric.

Please post if you care to add more government logic to this thread. Let’s try to leave our partisan selves behind and speak of what actually makes good sense for the country.

[MattyG35]

Political parties = divide and conquer

[orion]

But all of this perfectly makes sense?

What could possibly be more logical than taking your money and not only make other people dependent on the organization in question but you as well?

There are people begging to be in chains and someone is going to give them to them at no cost for himself whatsoever and they will thank him for it.

[florelius]

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Political parties = divide and conquer[/quote]

more correct would be: political parties = interrest groups.

edited.

[Rockscar]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Political parties = divide and conquer[/quote]

more corret would be: political parties = interrest groups.

[/quote]

No. It is a by-product but not equal to. Flor…use spell check my young gipper!

What it will take is a huge economic crash and war upon us to unite the cultures and sectors we have in the US with no political interference.

Otherwise as a whole…we are a fat group of fantasy thinkers and spenders in America with no sand to back anything up with.

[dk44]

Great post Zeb.

Add

Do you think more gun legislation will keep guns out of CRIMINAL hands? If they are going to steal, murder, etc. do you think they will obey a law preventing gun ownership? Who is more likely to follow gun laws, upstanding citizens or criminals? So why take guns away from people who obey the law?

[ZEB]

[quote]dk44 wrote:
Great post Zeb.

Add

Do you think more gun legislation will keep guns out of CRIMINAL hands? If they are going to steal, murder, etc. do you think they will obey a law preventing gun ownership? Who is more likely to follow gun laws, upstanding citizens or criminals? So why take guns away from people who obey the law?

[/quote]

Once again logic demands that every citizen be able to arm him/her self as long as there are reasonable laws to prevent the mentally deranged from legally obtaining a weapon. Just as there are laws preventing mentally disabled people from driving a motor vehicle.

[PAINTRAINDave]

As you said, nothing is “cut and dry”

Empirically speaking:

Countries without some sort of “unemployment” safety net general have much more volatile markets and gross employment.

Countries that don’t have progressive tax systems have poorer middle and lower classes (duh).

Countries with low gun control have (gasp!) more gun deaths.

[PAINTRAINDave]

Just to expand on my thoughts: this thread is the CORE of the “vitriol” issue.

You’ve set forth a set of OPINIONS stated as questions (look at some of your adjective choices) and said that they (your opinions) are LOGICAL, therefore to disagree, you must be ILLOGICAL.

That being the core of the “vitriol” problem.

In policy decisions there never is a “right” answer, and I feel the problem of “othering” (the technical rhetorical debate term for what your doing) is exacerbated in countries with 2-party systems, the most prominent being, of course, America.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
Just to expand on my thoughts: this thread is the CORE of the “vitriol” issue.

You’ve set forth a set of OPINIONS stated as questions (look at some of your adjective choices) and said that they (your opinions) are LOGICAL, therefore to disagree, you must be ILLOGICAL.

That being the core of the “vitriol” problem.

In policy decisions there never is a “right” answer, and I feel the problem of “othering” (the technical rhetorical debate term for what your doing) is exacerbated in countries with 2-party systems, the most prominent being, of course, America.
[/quote]

Well said… one of the better posts related to politics that I have yet seen on this site.

[orion]

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
As you said, nothing is “cut and dry”

Empirically speaking:

Countries without some sort of “unemployment” safety net general have much more volatile markets and gross employment.

Countries that don’t have progressive tax systems have poorer middle and lower classes (duh).

Countries with low gun control have (gasp!) more gun deaths. [/quote]

All 3 above are false.

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
Just to expand on my thoughts: this thread is the CORE of the “vitriol” issue.

You’ve set forth a set of OPINIONS stated as questions (look at some of your adjective choices) and said that they (your opinions) are LOGICAL, therefore to disagree, you must be ILLOGICAL.

[/quote]

This is pretty close to what I was thinking. If one wants to cut the vitriol, one might want to start by honestly trying to understand “the other side,” addressing their points, admitting the value in their thinking, and explaining why one believes otherwise.

Of course, it’s easier to just call others “illogical” (or stupid, or any other derogatory term one can think of). This is especially true on a site full of like-minded individuals.

Just my two cents.

[Tex_Ag]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sometimes I really wish all of this partisan bickering would come to an end. I wonder why in 2011 we can’t just look at things logically instead of always through the standard political process.

Forget you are either a republican or a democrat and look at the following thoughts in a logical manner:

Does it really make sense to pay someone to stay home? [/quote]

This can, if by stay home you include raising children. In countries that have low natural birth rates (I am thinking about filling future employment) that want to prevent heavy immigration need to do something to encourage increased fertility of existing citizens. One way is to provide support for those who stay at home (or work part-time) with children.

The logic being, you need more future workers, you do not want workers from outside, you create an incentive for people to have more children.

Although this may not be really what you meant. My point is that context matters. There are times when what we are used to seeing as ‘always’ wrong can sometimes be right.

[ZEB]

PAINTRAINDave,

Thank you for your illogical answer. On this thread at least you are the epitome of what seems to be wrong with my country. Intelligent people like you who have swallowed a certain political philosophy hook line and sinker. Even to the point where the illogical seems logical.

You are in essence saying it is logical to take money from hard working people and give it to others so that they do not have to work and are able to stay home contributing nothing to the economy.

And in addition you think it makes perfect sense to disarm the citizenry so that they are powerless in the face of adversaries.

And finally it is perfectly logical to you to grow our government beyond our means to pay for it.

Thank you for serving as the perfect example of the illogic that serves today as our government.

[dnlcdstn]

ZEB for president! If it was that easy : (

I don’t see what is so hard to understand.

I wonder if things just happen to become complicated or some mass conspiracy to divide and conquer exists? I mean being as intelligent as we are, how are we not a safe, uniform, healthy nation/world? We’ve had thousands of years to get it right.

[MaximusB]

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
Just to expand on my thoughts: this thread is the CORE of the “vitriol” issue.

You’ve set forth a set of OPINIONS stated as questions (look at some of your adjective choices) and said that they (your opinions) are LOGICAL, therefore to disagree, you must be ILLOGICAL.

That being the core of the “vitriol” problem.

In policy decisions there never is a “right” answer, and I feel the problem of “othering” (the technical rhetorical debate term for what your doing) is exacerbated in countries with 2-party systems, the most prominent being, of course, America.
[/quote]

It’s a damn shame that somewhere in your menial brain stem, you associate disagreement with vitriol.

You see this with the Left alot, how dare you disagree with me, you are a racist, a xenophobe, and vitriolic. People are entitled to their opinions, we do not need extreme labels such as vitriol for people who simply disagree.

Even our president has talked about disagreeing without being disagreeable, yet you cannot grasp this very concept.

Why is there this demand for us to all get along? I like gridlock, it means my taxes don’t go up.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
Just to expand on my thoughts: this thread is the CORE of the “vitriol” issue.

You’ve set forth a set of OPINIONS stated as questions (look at some of your adjective choices) and said that they (your opinions) are LOGICAL, therefore to disagree, you must be ILLOGICAL.

That being the core of the “vitriol” problem.

In policy decisions there never is a “right” answer, and I feel the problem of “othering” (the technical rhetorical debate term for what your doing) is exacerbated in countries with 2-party systems, the most prominent being, of course, America.
[/quote]

It’s a damn shame that somewhere in your menial brain stem, you associate disagreement with vitriol.

You see this with the Left alot, how dare you disagree with me, you are a racist, a xenophobe, and vitriolic. People are entitled to their opinions, we do not need extreme labels such as vitriol for people who simply disagree.

Even our president has talked about disagreeing without being disagreeable, yet you cannot grasp this very concept.

Why is there this demand for us to all get along? I like gridlock, it means my taxes don’t go up. [/quote]

Nowhere in Dave’s post did he demand that we all agree. He simply pointed out that what Zeb presented as irrefutably logical facts are actually largely opinion.

Nor did he associate disagreeing with him with vitriol. He merely stated the obvious - that if you present your opinions as logical fact, then you are setting the precedent that anyone who disagrees with you is illogical. This is not a useful or logical tool of debate, and it is called “othering.”

He was, in fact, suggesting that Zeb’s arguments were couched in exactly the type of “disagreeable” rhetorical tools that he was seeking to avoid and that you decry.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

That ZEB started this thread is absolute hysterically funny.

[ZEB]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
That ZEB started this thread is absolute hysterically funny.[/quote]

Coming from you that’s a compliment -YOU are the one extolling marxism as the answer (eye roll) even those of a more liberal persuasion know better than that. You see junior you’re at the bottom of the food chain around here.

[swoleupinya]

It’s amazing how quickly I forget how pathologically insecure Zeb is…