The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

I know you were because you couldn't possibly name the ones republicans are allegedly threatening.

1. privacy (e.g. every NSA news story ever)
2. 15th amendment (c.f. voting machine vulnerabilities and reduction of polling places on college campuses and densely populated urban/liberal counties)
3. separation of church and state (e.g. Texas. All of Texas. But specifically, their influence on textbook content standards leads to a disproportionately conservative & anti-scientific bent in many science books, for example.)
4. Repealing the affordable care act
5. denying and stymying efforts to reduce anthropogenic global warming
6. equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples

Obviously some of these are partisan issues and a die-hard republican might not even agree that all of them are rights issues. However, I would argue that the general trend is for republicans' legislation and policy platform to limit rather than safeguard the rights of the average citizen.

I disagree about WWII because of not only the potential of the Nazis, but the Soviets as well. We would have gone into that war regardless of Pearl Harbor for what I think are noble reasons AND self interest.

Oh, if it wasn't clear I do think that WWII counted as a defense of freedoms. Living in a world with anti-equality foes on the other side of both oceans probably would have limited freedoms of Americans.

The (potential) distinction between the nobility of War2 and War1 is what I wanted to get across.

1. privacy (e.g. every NSA news story ever)
2. 15th amendment (c.f. voting machine vulnerabilities and reduction of polling places on college campuses and densely populated urban/liberal counties)
3. separation of church and state (e.g. Texas. All of Texas. But specifically, their influence on textbook content standards leads to a disproportionately conservative & anti-scientific bent in many science books, for example.)
4. Repealing the affordable care act
5. denying and stymying efforts to reduce anthropogenic global warming
6. equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples

Obviously some of these are partisan issues and a die-hard republican might not even agree that all of them are rights issues. However, I would argue that the general trend is for republicans' legislation and policy platform to limit rather than safeguard the rights of the average citizen.

The (potential) distinction between the nobility of War2 and War1 is what I wanted to get across.

Originally posted by psmith81992

I'm not getting the distinction. WWI was WWII (mostly) minus the technological upgrades and the holocaust. Just to point out I'm not saying they were the same because there were a lot of distinctions but the freedom aspect was a huge part in WWI, not as big as WWII obviously.

I guess I have been imagining WwI as an almost inevitable outcome from the race for Africa; Europe was awaiting any spark to set off the many tensions and treaties between huge imperialistic world powers (in a very small geographical area). So while the war was destructive and violent and placed the aggressors in the wrong, the motivations were geopolitical and strategic rather than racial or fascistic. This, the First World War had political maneuvering at stake, but possibly not freedom. The presence of Jewish scientists in Berlin up until the start of WWII suggests that racial oppression was less of a concern for WWI Germany.

But I will admit that my War One knowledge is a bit rusty.

It's not so much as the initial motivations for WWI, it's what would have inevitably happened had the US not entered the war or the Germans won. Again, not on the level of WWII but the freedom of Europe would have been unquestionably challenged.

Dave, just admit that slavery and the holocaust never happened.

Slavery probably didn't.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/26/appeals-court-refuses-to-lift-hold-on-obama-immigration-action/?intcmp=latestnews

Ouch

YouTube video
WHY DID THEY REMAKE THIS!? WHY!

Actually RH, I just realized it was the democrats in favor of the spying and snooping and Republicans and libertarians staunchly opposing it. Only reminded me because wife was watching a Rand Paul interview.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Actually RH, I just realized it was the democrats in favor of the spying and snooping and Republicans and libertarians staunchly opposing it. Only reminded me because wife was watching a Rand Paul interview.

You actually believe anything Rand Paul says? That's mind-boggling.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
You actually believe anything Rand Paul says? That's mind-boggling.

I didn't say I did. But RH sure seems to believe the Democrats if he thinks they're either against spying, or the Republicans are for. So by your logic, we should believe no politician and therefore, we don't know who's dicking up what. And no, I don't believe Paul. He's a cook just like his old man.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418831/defend-position-you-must-understand-both-sides-dennis-prager?target=author&tid=900932

Good read

I'll own up to not investigating which camp takes which side on the NSA issue. Maybe it is a function of living in Nebraska, or being on a college campus, but the people who care about the MSA's overstepping have been 100% liberal, while no conservatives that I have met (here, personally) have been upset by the data collection programs.

College campuses are an inaccurate portrayal of the political landscape. It's bored insecure college students in desperate need of a cause. I suggest you ignore the chatter and do what you're supposed to in college, which is get drunk and have lan parties (that's what everyone does right?)

Originally posted by Zampanó
I'll own up to not investigating which camp takes which side on the NSA issue. Maybe it is a function of living in Nebraska, or being on a college campus, but the people who care about the MSA's overstepping have been 100% liberal, while no conservatives that I have met (here, personally) have been upset by the data collection programs.

Either way, in states in which I have lived, conservatives have characteristically been about "teh safety from teh tourrists" and therefore are all about whatever it takes. I'm sure there's exceptions and overlap on both parties, but exceptions don't alter the greater example here.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I didn't say I did. But RH sure seems to believe the Democrats if he thinks they're either against spying, or the Republicans are for. So by your logic, we should believe no politician and therefore, we don't know who's dicking up what. And no, I don't believe Paul. He's a cook just like his old man.

Rand Paul is a blithering idiot who thinks he's Libertarian and falls somewhere between Creationist apologist and theocrat. His old man had opportunities, but the son really takes the cake.

In any case, I don't simply check party affiliated news articles to support my position, or side-leaning ones either like "patriotsconservative.com". You want to know more about a political entity? Study what they vote for and against, and study what they say on CSPAN2; most of the time, these so-called libertarians and tea partiers are just all about billionaire's rights and oblivious to anything except an anti-Democrat platform. I'm not technically a Democrat myself. I may identify more with their agenda than the Republicans, but in reality both have issues. But here in America, it's just easier to divide people into two camps instead of any number higher with overlap, because thinking is hard.

That's why people just vote Republican and go to church so the holy man can cherry pick the shepherd's book for them and tell them what truth is instead of having to you know, think on it.

In any case, I don't simply check party affiliated news articles to support my position, or side-leaning ones either like "patriotsconservative.com".

ou want to know more about a political entity? Study what they vote for and against, and study what they say on CSPAN2; most of the time, these so-called libertarians and tea partiers are just all about billionaire's rights and oblivious to anything except an anti-Democrat platform. I'm not technically a Democrat myself. I may identify more with their agenda than the Republicans, but in reality both have issues. But here in America, it's just easier to divide people into two camps instead of any number higher with overlap, because thinking is hard.

That's why people just vote Republican and go to church so the holy man can cherry pick the shepherd's book for them and tell them what truth is instead of having to you know, think on it.

Originally posted by psmith81992
If you notice, I check foxnews and then the other side equivalent like msnbc or cnn. I posted a Prager article from a conservative website because that's where it happened to be.

So you checked two or three biased popular websites, which have been explicitly divvied up to cater to certain political demographics, instead of something far more impartial? Ever heard of NPR? Hell, BBC is better than any of those.

All about billionaire rights? And I suppose the democrats are for the working class?

What laws if any have the Republicans passed in the last eight years that truly benefited the working class? Or veterans or retirees (i.e. their largest voting group bar none). Hell, if you can find me something that puts money in anyone's pocket who doesn't make 100k plus a year, I'd be thrilled.

Are Democrats making this place an over-night working class heaven? No. But then again, when the Republicans are entirely dedicated to sabotaging them, how can you expect such tremendous change?

If you REALLY wanted to be objective,

That's not an if. You're the one reading far left news blurbs created by millionaires who just want to exploit the money making potential of even those they disagree with, and comparing it with what already conforms to your bias and saying "research done".

you'd say that both parties are about money, most of their views more or less overlap, and they're almost two different sides of the same coin. That's the objective truth. Everything else is just people trying to be "different".

They have more in common with each other than us. Politics has been a rich man's game since the Founding Fathers. Even now, democratic elections just basically say what old rich white guy takes a seat in your area or state and does whatever the hell the lobbyists tell him to do.

But if I had to point to a party and say "well, they're a lesser evil" or "well, they're actually making some headway on social change instead of being a professional group of saboteurs", it sure as **** wouldn't be the Republicans.

Ah yes, and the Democrats are self proclaimed enlightened that have to tell themselves they're unique/different/rational/special snowflakes and pretend to care about the poor, so they can sleep at night. I mean if we're going to be doing ignorant grade school comparisons, that is.

Just admit that the Republican party includes a bunch of old people voting against their self interests because things like equality, brown people invading and gay people touching make them scared in their lounge chairs, stupid rednecks or brain-washed millennials who think only Republicans follow the holy Bible, and people who stand to make millions if not billions from the conservative method of licking big business' ass while the wealth gap increases to Great Depression levels.

So you checked two or three biased popular websites, which have been explicitly divvied up to cater to certain political demographics, instead of something far more impartial? Ever heard of NPR? Hell, BBC is better than any of those.

What laws if any have the Republicans passed in the last eight years that truly benefited the working class? Or veterans or retirees (i.e. their largest voting group bar none). Hell, if you can find me something that puts money in anyone's pocket who doesn't make 100k plus a year, I'd be thrilled.

Are Democrats making this place an over-night working class heaven? No. But then again, when the Republicans are entirely dedicated to sabotaging them, how can you expect such tremendous change?

That's not an if. You're the one reading far left news blurbs created by millionaires who just want to exploit the money making potential of even those they disagree with, and comparing it with what already conforms to your bias and saying "research done".

But if I had to point to a party and say "well, they're a lesser evil" or "well, they're actually making some headway on social change instead of being a professional group of saboteurs", it sure as **** wouldn't be the Republicans.

Just admit that the Republican party includes a bunch of old people voting against their self interests because things like equality, brown people invading and gay people touching make them scared in their lounge chairs, stupid rednecks or brain-washed millennials who think only Republicans follow the holy Bible, and people who stand to make millions if not billions from the conservative method of licking big business' ass while the wealth gap increases to Great Depression levels.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Why? When I can just check the polar opposite source?

Also, all of those major news corporations are owned by people who explicitly decided to report all news with obvious bias. Why would you use a biased counterpoint to justify your own biased source? That's entirely stupid. You took Logic and Reasoning (I hope); do you not see this?

Show me what the democrats have done?

In a few words: a lot.

Meanwhile, here's the opposition:

You must have amnesia to conveniently forget every time a president of one party collides with the senate/house of another. The loan exception was Clinton.

*lone.

And it's apparent, even on the news stations you frequent, that the Teapublicans have done pretty much nothing but try to stifle Obama, because whatever. Don't get sidetracked; my point stands.

Confirms my bias? Please give me an example of where I "confirmed" my bias, lol. And you out of all people should be the last one lecturing others on bias, but that's ok.

Typical Dave debating strategy: deny and accuse everyone else of the same crime.

Please explain how the Democrats are the lesser of two evils?

I did in detail. Are you able to refute or do you need access to Fox News to help you?

REALLY poor attempt at baiting me bro. I know you have your flaws but I'm not about to believe that you have a grade school understanding of party differences 😂

Nah, you're just being ignorant as usual and unwilling to defend your point with anything other than "nuh uh" behavior.