To a great degree, it frequently appears as though democrats regurgitate the same platitudes foisted on me in my public education. When I meet someone who is a proud registered democrat and regularly proselytizes about how great unions are, and how awful the "robber barons" of the 19th century were, I can only think to myself - Wow, you sound EXACTLY like my high school history teacher!.. and strangely, like every other democrat I know. I have to wonder at times, if it's not because that high school history teacher was in the teachers union, and the teachers union was regularly rigging school board elections to ensure that the person elected was a union supporter themselves so that they were effectively negotiating with themselves... but I digress.
Even still, I welcome any argument for intelligent debate.
Yet I still haven't heard a seriously intelligent argument. - I mean with intelligent premises. The argument can be well written, or intelligently organized, but the premises are always from the heart, not the mind.
That's not to say that our emotions aren't valuable or important even in the decision making process, but that is to say that valid arguments can't begin at the heart. When I've had people argue in favor of funding huge social programs, like Obamacare or funding planned parenthood the argument is always "You have to understand Joe, THEY CANNOT AFFORD HEALTH CARE!" - And I fully realize that. So in that such is a problem, I argue to work to make the cost cheaper. The argument most Democrats make is "No, we have to pay for it for them." "Why?" "Because it's the right thing to do." - Why is that? Why is it the right thing to do? The answer is always compassion in some form. - An emotional argument.
Rather than arguing something from the heart, try arguing it from the head. The same goal - Affordable health care for everyone - could be accomplished by making it cheaper, if we could put down a good method of accomplishing that goal. We've done it with other things, like drinking water, computers and information. Some did involve government subsidy, yes. But the means in those situations generally didn't involve the use of force, or welfare programs.
What I'm saying there is - There's a world of difference between making a low paying job livable, and raising someone's pay until it's livable. My argument doesn't stop here, I'm simply abridging and arguing in general concepts.
On Republicans;
Let me repeat for you. Nominee - God + Actual Fiscal Conservatism = Electable Candidate.
I hope you understand. Almost the ENTIRE REASON you fail is because of God.
Abortion? God Problem.
Women's Rights? God Problem.
Gay Marriage? God Problem.
Separation between church and state means that none of the above 3 items are negotiable during your potential term in office, and making them points during your campaign are SURE to prevent your election.
Please review the constitution you so eagerly claim to CONSERVE.
If additional clarification is necessary, please note Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli signed 1797 which reads, "In that the United States is not in ANYWAY a Christian nation..." This was a treaty signed with Tripolitania, then part of the Ottoman empire which was agreed upon by the founding fathers and a group of folks called "Musselmen" who we now call MUSLIMS.
The thing is - Every argument given to me by a democrat is an emotional one, every argument given to me by a republican is an ignorant one. Intelligence in politics? HA.
No comments:
Post a Comment